Clinical labs in the Asia Pacific region that use workflow automation technologies have substantially greater productivity as those that employ manual methods for pre- and post-analytical processes, according to new data from the Asia Pacific Laboratory Benchmarking Survey, an annual survey by Roche Diagnostics that measures the operational effectiveness of clinical labs across the region.

Overall, 52.9% of all respondents in the region’s advanced countries and 28.7% of labs in emerging markets are currently using automation technologies, such as pre- and post-analytical systems and connection modules to link them (see Clinical lab automation systems in Asia Pacific: 2020 adoption rates by country and technology for a detailed breakdown of usage rates across various market segments).

Large Labs Derive the Most Benefit

Across the total sample, which included 1150+ respondents in 2019, the median level of productivity for labs with automation systems was 163 samples per full-time-employee (FTE) per day, more than double that of labs without automation systems, which were only able to process 75 samples/FTE/day.

Large labs (defined as those processing over 1000 samples per day) benefitted the most from automation technologies, reporting a median level of productivity that was 36.1% greater than that of labs relying primarily on manual processes.

By comparison, medium labs (defined as those processing 251 to 1000 samples per day) with automation technologies reported a median level of productivity that was 20.2% higher than their less automated peers.  

Only a handful of the smaller labs in the sample had automation technologies in place so the data was insufficient to calculate the productivity impact of automation.

Productivity Impact of Automated Sample Aliquoting

Among the respondents that reported using automation for sample aliquoting, large labs experienced considerable productivity benefits, reporting a median level of productivity that was 23.5% higher than those of labs that performed sample aliquoting manually.  

Medium size labs, by contrast, reported negligible gains, and relatively few of the small labs reported that used automation for sample aliquoting (note: roughly one-fifth of all respondents reported that they did not perform sample aliquots at all).

Overall, the results indicate that large labs stand to gain the greatest productivity benefits from pursuing automation. This comes on top of other intangible benefits, such as reducing errors, improving biosafety and improving employee satisfaction by freeing laboratory staff to focus on more complex and rewarding tasks.

Interested to learn more about how your automation processes and technologies compare with that of your peers? Visit Survey & Reports to take the Clinical Chemistry Benchmarking Survey and receive valuable data on industry practices by lab size, country, geographic region (developed vs. developing countries) and lab type (public/private hospital vs. private commercial lab). If you’ve already taken the survey, visit your account periodically for updated statistics that can help you to plot changes over time and make strategic decisions for your lab.