Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Hendriks, Henriette Alice
• Kortlandt, Wouter
• Verweij, Willem Marius

Titel

Standardized Comparison of Processing Capacity and Efficiency of Five New-Generation Immunoassay Analyzers

Ist Teil von

• Clinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.), 2000-01, Vol.46 (1), p.105-111

Ort / Verlag

Washington, DC: Am Assoc Clin Chem

Erscheinungsjahr

2000

Quelle

Oxford Journals 2020 Medicine

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• With the trend toward laboratory and workstation consolidation, more studies are necessary to evaluate instrumentation, solutions for coping with workflow and test diversity, and opportunities for increasing the overall efficiency of laboratory testing. We assessed the processing capacity and efficiency of new-generation immunoassay analyzers by determining productivity parameters of five commercially available systems. A workload protocol was developed and used to assess processing capacity and efficiency parameters of five immunoassay analyzers under standardized conditions in a real-life routine situation. We studied the ACS:Centaur((R)) (analyzer A), Architect(TM) i2000 (analyzer B), Elecsys((R)) 2010 tandem (analyzer C), Immulite((R)) 2000 (analyzer D), and Vitros ECi (analyzer E) on the basis of a standardized workload protocol that reflected a routine laboratory situation. This workload encompassed reflex and STAT testing, dilutions, and in-run calibration of a new reagent lot number. The analyzers were compared for hands-on labor time, unattended time (UT), throughput, and differentiated relative productivity indexes [RPI((UT)); number of reportable results/(processing time - sum of unattended time)]. The RPI data for analyzers linked to an automated (aut) sample-handling system [RPI((aut))] were also calculated. The evaluation produced a set of parameters for the productivity of the instruments. An overview of the most important parameters revealed the following: the throughput was 193, 123, 97, 109, and 46 tests/hour for instruments A, B, C, D and E, respectively; the RPI((10)) was 425, 238, 161, 445, and 151 tests/operator-hour; the RPI((30)) was 229, 136, 118, 264, and 86 tests/operator-hour; the RPI((10,aut)) was 1701, 637, 235, 964, and 223 tests/operator-hour; and the RPI((30, aut)) was 298, 150, 174, 400, and 114 tests/operator-hour. The combination of a standardized workload protocol and determination of parameters for productivity and labor efficiency, especially the differentiated RPIs, made it possible to make an objective comparison of the organizational consequences of the use of these instruments. The described parameters allow for a scientifically based choice, given a certain workflow and a particular laboratory organization.