4.5 Article

Experimental fusion of different versions of the total laboratory automation system and improvement of laboratory turnaround time

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.22400

关键词

laboratory quality; out of turnaround time sample; total automation system; total laboratory automation; turnaround time

资金

  1. National Cancer Center, Republic of Korea [NCC 1510100]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundUse of total laboratory automation (TLA) system has expanded to microbiology and hemostasis and upgraded to second and third generations. We herein report the first successful upgrades and fusion of different versions of the TLA system, thus improving laboratory turnaround time (TAT). MethodsA 21-day schedule was planned from the time of pre-meeting to installation and clinical sample application. We analyzed the monthly TAT in each menu, distribution of the out of range for acceptable TAT samples, and prolonged time out of acceptable TAT, before and after the upgrade and fusion. ResultsWe installed and customized hardware, middleware, and software. The one-way CliniLog 2.0 version track, 50.0-m long, was changed to a 23.2-m long one-way 2.0 version and an 18.7-m long two-way 4.0 version. The monthly TAT in the outpatient samples, before and after upgrading the TLA system, were uniformly satisfactory in the chemistry and viral marker menus. However, in the tumor marker menu, the target TAT (98.0% of samples 60minutes) was not satisfied during the familiarization period. There was no significant difference in the proportion of out of acceptable TAT samples, before and after the TLA system upgrades (7.4 and 8.5 parts per thousand). However, the mean prolonged time out of acceptable TAT in the chemistry samples was significantly shortened to 17.4 (+/- 24.0)minutes after the fusion, from 34.5 (+/- 43.4)minutes. ConclusionsDespite experimental challenges, a fusion of the TLA system shortened the prolonged time out of acceptable TAT, indicating a distribution change in overall TAT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据