Laboratory automation: efficiency and turnaround times
Patrick R MurrayBD Diagnostic Systems
7 Loveton Circle
Sparks, Maryland 21152, USA
Tel: 410 316 4477
Fax: 410 316 4041
Email: patrick_murray@bd.com
Microbiology Australia 35(1) 49-51 https://doi.org/10.1071/MA14013
Published: 4 February 2014
Abstract
Although automation is widely used in clinical chemistry, hematology and immunology laboratories, the microbiology laboratory has been slow to adopt automation. Some may criticise microbiologists as being overly conservative and this may seem justified when we recognise that many of the fundamental technologies used in today's laboratories have existed for more than 100 years (e.g. petri dishes of culture media, biochemical tests for organism identification, microscope for observing organisms on glass slides). Some testing in microbiology has been automated, most notably blood cultures, biochemical identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing, but more comprehensive laboratory automation has been challenged by the variety of specimens submitted for microbiology evaluation, complexity of protocols for processing the specimens, and the technical skills required to evaluate and interpret cultured specimens. Despite these challenges and the apparent reluctance for many microbiologists to forsake tradition, we are at the threshold of major changes and opportunities in the microbiology laboratory with the introduction of laboratory automation. In this review I examine the existing automation platforms, how clinically significant value can be realised from the systems and the path forward for additional opportunities. For the sake of clarity, I will restrict my comments to automated platforms currently in routine clinical use and not discuss systems under development or promised.
References
[1] Novak, S.M. and Marlowe, E.M. (2013) Automation in the clinical microbiology laboratory Clin. Lab. Med. 33, 567–588.| Automation in the clinical microbiology laboratoryCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23931839PubMed |
[2] Greub, G. and Prod’hom, G. (2011) Automation in clinical bacteriology: what system to choose? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 17, 655–660.
| Automation in clinical bacteriology: what system to choose?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3MvntVaqtQ%3D%3D&md5=c36743e73b2a8698ca9b4a7c40e72b3fCAS | 21521409PubMed |
[3] Bourbeau, P.P. and Ledeboer, N.A. (2013) Automation in clinical microbiology. J. Clin. Microbiol. 51, 1658–1665.
| Automation in clinical microbiology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23515547PubMed |
[4] Bourbeau, P.P. and Swartz, B.L. (2009) First evaluation of the WASP, a new automated microbiology plating instruments. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47, 1101–1106.
| First evaluation of the WASP, a new automated microbiology plating instruments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXlvVamt78%3D&md5=c057959d87086719fd158f198ea4ad01CAS | 19158259PubMed |
[5] Mischnik, A. et al. (2012) First evaluation of automated specimen inoculation for wound swab samples by use of the Previ Isola system compared to manual inoculation in a routine laboratory: finding a cost-effective and accurate approach. J. Clin. Microbiol. 50, 2732–2736.
| First evaluation of automated specimen inoculation for wound swab samples by use of the Previ Isola system compared to manual inoculation in a routine laboratory: finding a cost-effective and accurate approach.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22692745PubMed |