The Wisconsin Clinical Laboratory Network (WCLN) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison is a partnership of 138 clinical and public health laboratories (as of February 2019) coordinated by the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene. This article describes the WCLN, its current activities, and lessons learned through this partnership. A laboratory technical advisory group, which consists of representatives from clinical laboratories, provides clinical laboratory perspective to the WCLN and fosters communication among laboratories. Activities and resources available through the WCLN include annual regional meetings, annual technical workshops, webinars, an email listserv, laboratory informational messages, in-person visits by a WCLN coordinator to clinical laboratories, and laboratory-based surveillance data and summaries distributed by the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene. One challenge to maintaining the WCLN is securing continual funding for network activities. Key lessons learned from this partnership of more than 20 years include the importance of in-person meetings, the clinical perspective of the laboratory technical advisory group, and providing activities and resources to clinical laboratories to foster sharing of data and clinical specimens for public health surveillance and outbreak response.

The Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene challenged Wisconsin laboratories to examine their biosafety practices and improve their culture of biosafety. One hundred three clinical and public health laboratories completed a questionnaire-based, microbiology-focused biosafety risk assessment. Greater than 96% of the respondents performed activities related to specimen processing, direct microscopic examination, and rapid nonmolecular testing, while approximately 60% performed culture interpretation. Although they are important to the assessment of risk, data specific to patient occupation, symptoms, and travel history were often unavailable to the laboratory and, therefore, less contributory to a microbiology-focused biosafety risk assessment than information on the specimen source and test requisition. Over 88% of the respondents complied with more than three-quarters of the mitigation control measures listed in the survey. Facility assessment revealed that subsets of laboratories that claim biosafety level 1, 2, or 3 status did not possess all of the biosafety elements considered minimally standard for their respective classifications. Many laboratories reported being able to quickly correct the minor deficiencies identified. Task assessment identified deficiencies that trended higher within the general (not microbiology-specific) laboratory for core activities, such as packaging and shipping, direct microscopic examination, and culture modalities solely involving screens for organism growth. For traditional microbiology departments, opportunities for improvement in the cultivation and management of highly infectious agents, such as acid-fast bacilli and systemic fungi, were revealed. These results derived from a survey of a large cohort of small- and large-scale laboratories suggest the necessity for continued microbiology-based understanding of biosafety practices, vigilance toward biosafety, and enforcement of biosafety practices throughout the laboratory setting.