Trust in Clinical Lab Automation Takes a New Turn

Clinical laboratory automation has trust issues.

Earlier this month at the annual conference of the Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening (SLAS) in Boston, MA—which featured hundreds of exhibitors displaying their automation and analytics wares—I learned that generational hiccups are creating new doubts about this technology.

That was a surprise to me, because until recently, I put mistrust of lab automation into two camps: return on investment (ROI) and effect on human jobs.

Yet now, there seems to be a more subtle mistrust going on as it concerns users of automated platforms.

How do young professionals use technology?

The premise at SLAS started with a hackneyed, but not necessarily untrue, view that some veteran pathologists don’t want to implement automation because it represents substantial, costly change. After all, why should a lab or practice take on that change given all the cost-cutting that’s already going on?

In contrast, observers at SLAS told me some younger workers in labs will use automation technology, but only on the surface. In other words, labs that do implement automation feel they can’t trust up-and-coming crews to take full advantage of these expensive, new instruments.

I heard someone compare the situation to TikTok: Many younger lab professionals will click the button on the automation screen … and that’s it. They may not be as interested in testing the boundaries and applications of the technology.

That dilemma opens the door for sellers that offer different pathways to automation, such as smaller platforms with no frills and even cost-sharing approaches that can help smaller labs.

In those cases, fewer features, less complexity, and lower costs may have more appeal to all sides.

Cost and job loss remain concerns

Anything that can help control the cost of automation is a worthy exercise. Installing automation is a big capital purchase, and labs are justifiably wary that they won’t see a return on investment for that spending. [Read more: 8 Tips for a Successful Capital Request]

Last year, a consultant at a large in vitro diagnostics vendor told me that automation is only worth the up-front expenditure if a lab plans to staff two or three shifts daily. A single 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, for example, does not generate enough test volume to warrant installing automated equipment. Mistrust of the cost of automation is valid.

However, the evidence is less so when it comes to mistrust in automation due to a perceived threat to people’s jobs.

Yes, automation can replace routine, repetitive human tasks in the lab. However, in those circumstances, workers are freed up to do more meaningful work.

Modern technology still requires a level of critical thinking that only humans can provide. As noted by a prominent leader in the field, “Sophisticated instrumentation requires sophisticated professionals to operate and respond to problems in the correct manner.”

I walked out of SLAS feeling lab automation still has a way to go to gain acceptance. Not only does the technology need to prove its worth against costs and human job loss, but it now has the additional challenge of winning over younger workers who may want a plug-and-play approach from a new platform.