During previous decades, significant improvements in laboratory errors have become a substantial part of reducing preventable diagnostic errors. In clinical laboratory practice, the errors in the testing process are primarily associated with extra-analytical phase error sources, influencing the test result quality profoundly. Thus, the management of these critical error sources makes their effects preventable thanks to automation and computer sciences. The implementation of non-analytical automated systems requires a risk management strategy based on laboratory’s workflow and bottlenecks. Then, the improvements can be measured and evaluated by the usage of quality indicators (QI). Consequently, the total quality of laboratory diagnostics and higher patient safety is closely dependent on this type of automation. This review will help laboratory professionals, managers, and directors improve the total testing processes (TTP). The automation technologies have added a serious impact on the proficiency of laboratory medicine. Several instrumentations have now partially or entirely automated many manual tasks to improve standardization, organization, efficiency, and TTP quality. The implementation of non-analytical automation has made them manageable. As a result, non-analytical automation within and outside the clinical laboratory will necessarily lessen the error sources’ effect on the total test process, enhancing the quality of the test results.

Abstract:Clinical laboratory automation is very important to obtain reliable test results and to provide patient safety. There are some difficulties in implementing total automation to the clinical laboratories because they need a continuous, high quality customer service to keep their high quality serving, a questionable cost-affecting situation. It may be very difficult to keep the balance between the cost and the quality goals, patient safety, and demands. However, clinical laboratory automation may solve the dilemma and be implemented in clinical laboratories provided that it does not result in new bottlenecks in laboratory workflow. It is beyond the dispute that the minimal operator intervention benefited by total lab automation results in increased productivity, intra laboratory traceability of specimens, the decreased turnaround times, improvements in specimen handling, improved laboratory safety, and minimized errors. It has become very difficult, time-consuming, challenging task for the laboratories to decide to automate and which tests must be included in the analytical automation, to decide which one is more appropriate. First of all, a workflow and a workload analysis must be made for the present semi-automated laboratory. It would be focused in the present review that some strategies can be developed for this purpose.