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


     

Clinical Chemistry 43: 11-12, 1997;
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Lente, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Lente, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
(Clinical Chemistry. 1997;43:11-12.)
© 1997 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorials

Methodology and Subspecialty Consolidation in the Clinical Laboratory

Frederick Van Lente

Section of Biochemistry, Department of Clinical Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, Fax 216-444-4414

The design of instruments as automated workstations for the clinical laboratory has evolved steadily over the last two decades. The grouping of assays into clinical chemistry disciplines has been largely influenced by the instrumentation available, e.g., multicomponent chemistry analyzers and specialty analyzers, including analyte-specific analyzers, blood gas analyzers, nephelometers, instruments dedicated to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), and instruments dedicated to protein or other immunoassays. This evolution has been a synergy of needs and technologies.

The advent of managed care has led to stringent efforts to decrease the unit costs of laboratory testing and to increase productivity. Increases in efficiency in the clinical laboratory can be achieved by modifying the overall process flow and by using more-efficient technologies. These changes are assumed to decrease labor requirements and, therefore, to decrease the major component of the direct cost of testing. The use of multiple instrument types, however, even for such altruistic reasons as optimizing analytical performance, can create a process and scheduling problem in attempts to reduce unit costs (1)(2). Each instrument utilized in a clinical chemistry laboratory (or in a multidiscipline automated core laboratory) incurs support costs: for calibration, regulation compliance, utilities, maintenance (including service contracts), computer interfacing, and inventory control, among others. These costs will exist if the front and back ends of the specimen-processing functions are completely automated. Therefore, even if all specimen manipulations are automated, reducing the number of instrument workstations can still reduce costs.

The report by Scholer et al. in this issue of Clinical Chemistry describes an immunoturbidimetric method for digoxin that requires no pretreatment (3). The assay is adaptable to general chemistry analyzers, and its performance at several different centers with a variety of instrumentation is well documented here (3). Considering the analytical requirements for an acceptable . . . [Full Text of this Article]


References




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


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
F. Van Lente and V. Gatautis
Cost-efficient Use of Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry: A ""Piggyback"" Method for Analysis of Gabapentin
Clin. Chem., September 1, 1998; 44(9): 2044 - 2045.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.