Greater Efficiency Observed 12 Months Post-Implementation of an Automatic Tube Sorting and Registration System in a Core Laboratory/ Veća Efikasnost Uočena 12 Meseci Posle Implementacije Sistema za Automatsko Sortiranje i Registrovanje Uzoraka u Centralnoj Laboratoriji


Bachground: Sample classification and registration have been recognized as important and time-consuming processes in laboratories. There is increasing pressure on laboratories to automate processes due to intense workload and reduce manual procedures and errors. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the positive effects of an automatic tube registration and sorting system on specimen processing.

Methods: An automatic tube registration and sorting system (HCTS2000 MK2, m-u-t AG, Wedel, Germany) was evaluated. Turnaround time (TAT), rate of sample rejection and unrealized tests were examined 12 months pre- and post-implementation of the automatic tube sorting and registration system.

Results: The mean TAT of routine chemistry immunoassay, complete blood cell count (CBC) and coagulation samples were significantly improved (P<0.001). The number of rejected samples and unrealized tests was insignificantly decreased post-implementation of the system (0.4% to 0.2% and 4.5% to 1.4%, respectively) (P>0.05).

Conclusions: By reducing delays and errors in the preanalytical processing and sorting of samples, significant improvements in specimen processing were observed after implementation of the system. These results suggest that an automatic tube registration and sorting system may also be used to improve specimen processing in a higher-volume core laboratory.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Streitberg GS, Angel L, Sikaris KA, Bwititi PT. Automation in clinical biochemistry: core, peripheral, STAT, and specialist laboratories in Australia. J Lab Autom 2012; 17: 387-94.

  • 2. Lippi G, Guidi GC, Mattiuzzi C, Plebani M. Preanalytical variability: the dark side of the moon in laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006; 44: 358-65.

  • 3. Lima-Oliveira G, Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Laboratory Diagnostics and Quality of Blood Collection. J Med Biochem 2015; 34: 288-94.

  • 4. Hoffmann GE. Concepts for the third generation of laboratory systems. Clinica Chimica Acta 1998; 27: 203-16.

  • 5. Da Rin G. Pre-analytical workstations as a tool for reducing laboratory errors. J Med Biochem 2010; 29: 315-24.

  • 6. Sédille-Mostafaie N, Engler H, Lutz S, Korte W. Advancing haemostasis automation - successful implementation of robotic centrifugation and sample processing in a tertiary service hospital. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012; 15: 1-6.

  • 7. Chow AT, Kegelman JE, Kohli C, McCabbe DD, Moore JF. Application of existing technology to meet increasing demands for automated sample handling. Clin Chem 1990; 36: 1579-82.

  • 8. Goswami B, Singh B, Chawla R, Gupta VK, Mallika V.Turn Around Time (TAT) as a Benchmark of Laboratory Performance. Ind J Clin Biochem 2010; 25: 376-9.

  • 9. Manor PG. Turnaround times in the laboratory: a review of the literature. Clin Lab Sci 1999; 12: 85-9.

  • 10. Holman JW, Mifflin TE, Felder RA, Demers LM.Evaluation of an Automated Preanalytical Robotic Workstation at Two Academic Health Centers. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 540-8.

  • 11. Felder RA, Boyd JC, Margrey K, Holman W, Savory J.Robotics in the medical laboratory. Clin Chem 1990; 36: 1534-43.

  • 12. Markin RS, Whalen SA. Laboratory automation: trajectory, technology, and tactics. Clin Chem 2000; 46: 764-71.

  • 13. Middleton SR. Developing an automation concept that is right for your laboratory. Clin Chem 2000; 46: 757-63.

  • 14. Hawker CD, Garr SB, Hamilton LT, Penrose JR, Ashwood ER, Weiss RL. Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 1. Evaluation of needs and alternatives and development of a plan. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 1751-60.

  • 15. Hawker CD, Roberts WL, Garr SB, Hamilton LT, Penrose JR, Ashwood ER, et al. Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 2. Implementation of the system and performance measures over three years. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 1761-67.

  • 16. Jalili M, Shalileh K, Mojtahed A, Mojtahed M, Moradi- Lakeh M. Identifying Causes of Laboratory Turnaround Time Delay in the Emergency Department. Arch Iran Med 2012; 15: 759-63.

  • 17. Nørgaard B, Mogensen CB. Blood sample tube transporting system versus point of care technology in an emergency department; effect on time from collection to reporting? A randomised trial. Scan J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2012; 20: 71.


Journal + Issues