The degree of automation as well as the variability of the procedures that can be automated will continue to increase. Continued development will make the systems more flexible and result in products that can better accommodate the conditions of each individual lab. Automated technology is evolving quickly. It will soon include additional testing, e.g., direct testing of blood culture systems and molecular diagnostics.
The primary objective of automating microbiology labo- ratories is to improve the quality and consistency of processes that suffer from high variability and are labor-intensive. The hope is that these technologies will allow the laboratory staff to concentrate on the processing of more technically demanding specimens. Software solutions for integrating POCT devices will further improve the analytic process.
Lastly, digital image processing as an integral part of bacteriological clinical diagnostics will promote further de- velopment in telemedicine. In many centralized laboratory models, sample processing and plate reading may not take place in the same location. In such situations, quality stan- dards can still be maintained in small labs or in remote areas by offering access to experienced personnel. Telemedi- cine can help counter the lack of skilled personnel in these areas.
Further scientific evaluation of TLA could also facilitate an appraisal of its clinical relevance and its impact on pa- tient care. It could reduce errors and improve the quality of diagnostic microbiology.
SUMMARY
New advances in technology as well as staffing shortages are causing microbiologists to rethink laboratory design. It may be that the traditional laboratory model as we know it today will cease to exist in the near future. TLA will certainly become commonplace in high-volume laboratories and may eventually be found in smaller laboratories. Auto- mation is unlikely to replace medical technologists, but it will change requirements in two important ways. First of all, manual processing of the plates will be replaced by digital imaging. Second, the efficiency of automation may cause more laboratories to adopt the 24-h culture-reading strategy. Clinical microbiology is changing at a rapid pace,
primarily due to a surge in technological advances. Labora- tory designs will need to be more flexible to accommodate future developments.
REFERENCES
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2009.
Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories, 5th ed. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,
GA.
2. BaselskiV, Carey R,Clarridge J, Weissfeld A. 2005.
Survey of Clinical Microbiology Laboratory Workloads, Pro- ductivity Rates and Staffing Vacancies. American Society for
Microbiology, Washington, DC.
3. Jones JL, Lopez A, Wahlquist SP, Nadle J, Wilson M.
2004. Survey of clinical laboratory practices for parasitic diseases. Clin Infect Dis 38(Suppl 3):S198–S202. 4. Versalovic J, Funke G, Jorgensen J, Landry ML, War-
nock D. 2011. Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th ed,
vol 1. ASM Press, Washington, DC.
5. Campos J. 2012. Lean lab in action. MLO Med Lab Obs 44:25–29.
6. American Society of Clinical Pathologists. 1996. Board
of Registry Study Guide. Clinical Laboratory Certification Ex- aminations, 4th ed. American Society of Clinical Patholo-
gists, Chicago, IL.
7. Wimmer JL, Long SW, Cernoch P, Land GA, Davis JR, Musser JM, Olsen RJ. 2012. Strategy for rapid identifica-
tion and antibiotic susceptibility testing of gram-negative
bacteria directly recovered from positive blood cultures
using the Bruker MALDI Biotyper and the BD Phoenix system. J Clin Microbiol 50:2452–2454.
8. Tan KE, Ellis BC, Lee R, Stamper PD, Zhang SX, Carroll KC. 2012. Prospective evaluation of a matrix-assisted laser
desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry sys- tem in a hospital clinical microbiology laboratory for iden- tification of bacteria and yeasts: a bench-by-bench study for assessing the impact on time to identification and cost- effectiveness. J Clin Microbiol 50:3301–3308.
9. Patel R. 2013. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization–
time of flight mass spectrometry in clinical microbiology.
Clin Infect Dis 57:564–572.
10. Still M. 2013. MTRA, bitte melden. Dtsch Arzteblatt 110:105–106.
11. Mazzocato P, Savage C, Brommels M, Aronsson H, Thor J. 2010. Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of
the literature. Qual Saf Health Care 19:376–382. 12. Riebling N, Condon S, Gopen D. 2004. Toward error free
lab work. Six Sigma Forum Mag 4:6.
13. Rutledge J, Xu M, Simpson J. 2010. Application of the
Toyota production system improves core laboratory opera- tions. Am J Clin Pathol 133:24–31.
14. Carlson RO, Amirahmadi F, Hernandez JS. 2012. A
primer on the cost of quality for improvement of laboratory a n d p a t h o l o g y s p e c i m e n p r o c e s s e s . A m J C l i n P a t h o l
138:347–354.
15. Llopis MA, Trujillo G, Llovet MI, Tarres E, Ibarz M, Biosca C, Ruiz R, Kirchner MJ, Alvarez V, Busquets G, Domenech MV, Figueres C, Minchinela J, Pastor RM, Perich C, Ricos C, Sansalvador M, Palmada MS. 2011.
Quality indicators and specifications for key analytical-
extranalytical processes in the clinical laboratory. Five years’ experience using the Six Sigma concept. Clin Chem
Lab Med 49:463–470.
16. Vanker N, van Wyk J, Zemlin AE, Erasmus RT. 2010.
A SixSigma approach to the rate and clinicaleffect of
registration errors ina laboratory. J Clin Pathol 63:434–
437.
17. Gras JM, Philippe M. 2007. Application of the Six Sigma
concept in clinical laboratories: a review. Clin Chem Lab
Med 45:789–796.
18. Stankovic AK, Romeo P. 2007. The role of in vitro diag-
nostic companies in reducing laboratory error. Clin Chem
Lab Med 45:781–788.
19. Coskun A. 2007. Six Sigma and laboratory consultation.
Clin Chem Lab Med 45:121–123.
20. Persoon TJ, Zaleski S, Frerichs J. 2006. Improving preana-
lytic processes using the principles of lean production (Toy- ota production system). Am J Clin Pathol 125:16–25. 21. Hawker CD. 2007. Laboratory automation: total and sub-
total. Clin Lab Med 27:749–770, vi.
22. Tilton RC, Ryan RW. 1978. Evaluation of an automated
agar plate streaker. J Clin Microbiol 7:298–304.
23. Mischnik A, Mieth M, Busch CJ, Hofer S, Zimmermann S. 2012. First evaluation of automated specimen inocula-
tion for wound swab samples by use of the Previ Isola system compared to manual inoculation in a routine laboratory: finding a cost-effective and accurate approach. J Clin Micro-
biol 50:2732–2736.
24. Bourbeau PP, Swartz BL. 2009. First evaluation of the
WASP, a new automated microbiology plating instrument.
J Clin Microbiol 47:1101–1106.
25. Jones G, Matthews R, Cunningham R, Jenks P. 2011.
Comparison of automated processing of flocked swabs with manual processing of fiber swabs for detection of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus. J Clin Microbiol 49:2717– 2718.
26. Glasson JH, Guthrie LH, Nielsen DJ, Bethell FA. 2008.
Evaluation of an automated instrument for inoculating
and spreadingsamples ontoagar plates. J Clin Microbiol
46:1281–1284.
27. Mulatero F, Bonnardel V, Micolaud C. 2011. The way
forward for fast microbiology. Clin Microbiol Infect 17:661– 667.
28. Bourbeau PP, Ledeboer NA. 2013. Automation in clinical
microbiology. J Clin Microbiol 51:1658–1665.
29. Dumitrescu O, Dauwalder O, Lina G. 2011. Present and
future automation in bacteriology. Clin Microbiol Infect
17:649–650.
30. Matthews S, Deutekom J. 2011. The future of diagnostic
bacteriology. Clin Microbiol Infect 17:651–654.
31. Van Horn KG, Audette CD, Sebeck D, Tucker KA.
2008. Comparison of the Copan ESwab system with two Amies agar swab transport systems for maintenance of mi- croorganism viability. J Clin Microbiol 46:1655–1658. 32. Fontana C, Favaro M, Limongi D, Pivonkova J, Favalli
C. 2009. Comparison of the eSwab collection and transpor-
tation system to an Amies gel transystem for Gram stain of clinical specimens. BMC Res Notes 2:244.
33. Greub G, Prod’hom G. 2011. Automation in clinical bac-
teriology: what system to choose? Clin Microbiol Infect 17:655–660.
34. Garcia LS. 2010. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Hand- book, 3rd ed. ASM Press, Washington, DC.