Difference between revisions of "User:Shawndouglas/sandbox/sublevel4"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ideally, the clinical laboratory will want any implemented LIMS to be structured to fit the laboratory’s workflow, but not in a way that boxes the lab in. The base LIMS should contain key pieces that suit most any clinical laboratory but be flexible enough to allow the lab to match and adjust the system workflows to the lab’s unique daily requirements. No two labs are exactly the same, after all. | |||
In order for the LIMS to be configured to your workflow requirements, your lab will need to be able to fully understand and describe those workflow steps to the vendor. This means working through your entire process, including accessioning, preparing, and testing specimens; retrieving results from instruments (eliminating the need of manual data entry); reviewing and approving results; ordering re-runs if necessary; and reporting final results as required. Secondarily, this means advising the vendor about all these details up-front, and later describing what does and doesn’t work for you when implementing the LIMS. Clearly communicating these aspects to the vendor before and during implementation is more effective than simply hoping the system will alleviate any workflow issues as they arise post-implementation. When all is said and done, your lab should have an ideal LIMS at its fingertips, one that is flexible enough to not only address today’s workflows but also the workflows of tomorrow. | |||
Revision as of 17:22, 10 March 2022
Ideally, the clinical laboratory will want any implemented LIMS to be structured to fit the laboratory’s workflow, but not in a way that boxes the lab in. The base LIMS should contain key pieces that suit most any clinical laboratory but be flexible enough to allow the lab to match and adjust the system workflows to the lab’s unique daily requirements. No two labs are exactly the same, after all.
In order for the LIMS to be configured to your workflow requirements, your lab will need to be able to fully understand and describe those workflow steps to the vendor. This means working through your entire process, including accessioning, preparing, and testing specimens; retrieving results from instruments (eliminating the need of manual data entry); reviewing and approving results; ordering re-runs if necessary; and reporting final results as required. Secondarily, this means advising the vendor about all these details up-front, and later describing what does and doesn’t work for you when implementing the LIMS. Clearly communicating these aspects to the vendor before and during implementation is more effective than simply hoping the system will alleviate any workflow issues as they arise post-implementation. When all is said and done, your lab should have an ideal LIMS at its fingertips, one that is flexible enough to not only address today’s workflows but also the workflows of tomorrow.
