Automation of plate inoculation and reading reduces process time in the clinical microbiology laboratory, compared to a manual workflow

Abstract

ABSTRACTWe evaluated the benefits of automation for clinical microbiology laboratory workflow and compared the time required for culture inoculation and plate reading between manual processes and BD Kiestra (but Kiestra) automation. Kiestra automation consists of different modules, each of which facilitate different tasks and work together from specimen inoculation to results reporting. We tracked the steps and measured the associated times-to-completion for both manual and automated workflows, including number of plate touches, hands-on-time (HOT), total technologist time (TTT), and walk-away time (WAT). Manual and automated processes both included 90 samples, and a total of 180 agar plates. There were three media quantity protocols used to mimic common laboratory samples: 1) 30 ‘urine’ specimens on one biplate; 2) 30 ‘urine’ specimens divided across two plates; and 3) 30 ‘blood’ or ‘wound’ specimens divided across three plates; all cultures incubated for a minimum of 18 hours prior to reading or imaging. Automation reduced HOT by 85% and overall plate touches by 88%. Automated inoculation (through implementation of the BD InoqulA module) resulted in a 100% reduction in plate touches and created 81.5-minutes of WAT. Automation of culture reading (through implementation of the BD ReadA incubation/plate imaging module and BD Synapsys Informatics) reduced HOT by 53%. Overall, laboratory automation resulted in shorter TTT and created WAT when compared to manual processes. Automation can facilitate increased processing capacity, more efficient use of the labor force, and reduced time to results in the clinical microbiology laboratory.