Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 48: 1761-1767, 2002;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hawker, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Weiss, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hawker, C. D.
Right arrow Articles by Weiss, R. L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 2002;48:1761-1767.)
© 2002 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Automated Transport and Sorting System in a Large Reference Laboratory: Part 2. Implementation of the System and Performance Measures over Three Years

Charles D. Hawker1,2a, William L. Roberts1,2, Susan B. Garr1, Leslie T. Hamilton1, John R. Penrose1, Edward R. Ashwood1,2 and Ronald L. Weiss1,2

1 ARUP Laboratories, Inc., 500 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108.

2 Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132.

aAuthor for correspondence. Fax 801-584-5207; e-mail hawkercd{at}aruplab.com.

Background: Our laboratory implemented a major automation system in November 1998. A related report describes a 4-year process of evaluation and planning leading to system installation. This report describes the implementation and performance results over 3 years since the system was placed into use.

Methods: Project management software was used to track the project. Turnaround times of our top 500 tests before and after automation were measured. We compared the rate of hiring of employees and the billed unit per employee ratio before and after automation by use of linear regression analysis. Finally, we analyzed the financial contribution of the project through an analysis of return on investment.

Results: Since implementation, the volume of work transported and sorted has grown to >15 000 new tubes and >25 000 total tubes per day. Median turnaround time has decreased by an estimated 7 h, and turnaround time at the 95th percentile has decreased by 12 h. Lost specimens have decreased by 58%. A comparison of pre- and post-implementation hiring rates of employees estimated a savings of 33.6 employees, whereas a similar comparison of ratios of billed units per employee estimated a savings of 49.1 employees. Using the higher figure, we estimated that the $4.02 million cost of the project would be paid off ~4.9 years subsequent to placing the system into daily use.

Conclusions: The overall automation project implemented in our laboratory has contributed considerably to improvement of key performance measures and has met our original project objectives.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
C. D. Hawker, S. B. Garr, L. T. Hamilton, J. R. Penrose, E. R. Ashwood, and R. L. Weiss
Automated Transport and Sorting System in a Large Reference Laboratory: Part 1. Evaluation of Needs and Alternatives and Development of a Plan
Clin. Chem., October 1, 2002; 48(10): 1751 - 1760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.