IVD Technology Magazine
IVDT Article Index

Originally published November, 1998

IVD Technology News

Demand for lab automation steady, says CLMA survey

Makers of integrated testing systems may be encouraged to know that demand for their equipment among laboratorians is remaining steady. But companies producing total laboratory automation equipment may have a long way to go before they convince potential purchasers to buy their systems.

Those are among the key results of a survey of senior-level lab managers conducted by the Clinical Laboratory Management Association (CLMA; Wayne, PA) last May and June, and released in October. Responses from the 495 managers who participated in the survey suggest that robotics and automation will be adopted by a greater number of clinical laboratories in the coming year.

Only 7.7% of the responding managers said they had implemented robotics or automation in the past year, but 16.8% said they expected to do so in the coming year. The forms of automation that labs are most likely to implement over the next five years include integrated testing systems (41%), automated centrifugation (37%), and automated aliquoting (35%), the survey found (see Table). Total laboratory automation was far down the list at 12%. The percentages were virtually identical to a CLMA survey conducted the previous year, suggesting that demand for automated testing equipment is likely to remain stable over the next five years.

Percent of respondents that expect named types of laboratory automation to be implemented in their clinical laboratories within the next five years, according to surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998 by the Clinical Laboratory Management Association.

Technology purchases are only one way that laboratory managers are seeking to streamline performance and reduce turnaround times. The survey results suggest that significant restructuring is continuing among clinical laboratories.

One result of this restructuring seems likely to be the demise of self-standing and independent clinical laboratories. More than a third of the respondents (37.4%) said that their laboratory had joined a network or alliance in the past 12 months, and nearly a third (29.3%) indicated that they would be doing so in the next 12 months.

Another restructuring strategy that appears to be on the rise is the concept of implementing a core lab: 18.8% of respondents did so in the past 12 months, and 22.0% expect to do so in the next 12 months. Managers indicated it is common for them to use a combination of strategies.

Some restructuring strategies, however, appear to be on the wane. More than a third of respondents (35.8%) indicated that they had adopted a point-of-care testing program in the recent past, but only 9.9% expect to do so in the near future. Outsourcing of tests has already been adopted by 9.7% of labs in the past, but is expected in the future by only 8.5% of respondents. Best of all for laboratorians, downsizing, which has already been carried out by 30.5% of labs, is expected by only 17.8% in the future.

The survey results also indicate some changes in the types of tests that laboratories are choosing to keep in-house or outsource. Among the tests most commonly brought into the labs during the past year, thyroid tests were the most common (brought in by 23% of respondents' labs). Among the tests outsourced, molecular/PCR tests were the most likely to have been sent elsewhere (by 23% of labs), but this trend was nearly balanced by the high percentage of labs (17%) that added molecular/PCR tests to their repertoire. Electron microscopy was also a common outsourcing target (18% of labs reported doing so).

The managers who saw increased point-of-care testing reported an average increase of 10%; but this was balanced by those who saw a decline, also reported at 10% on average. Those who increased outsourcing did so by 5%; those who decreased it did so by 10%.

For about a third of the responding companies, all of these technology purchases and restructuring strategies appear to be paying off in quicker turnaround times for testing. About 33% of respondents said their facilities showed a drop in turnaround times during the previous year. Much of that drop seems to have come from reduced testing time, where 34% of respondents saw a decrease, compared to the 21% of respondents that reported a decrease in pretesting time and the 21% that saw reductions in posttesting time. For 14% of the respondents' companies, turnaround times increased during the previous year; 52% reported no change.

To purchase a copy of the report, contact Collette A. Steward, PhD, director of research, CLMA, at 610/995-9850, ext. 236.—Erik Swain