A laboratory information system (LIS) is the technological backbone of modern clinical laboratories, serving as a critical tool that manages and streamlines complex workflows from sample accessioning to result reporting. Selecting the appropriate LIS is a high-stakes decision for both hospital-based and independent reference laboratories in the U.S., as it directly impacts regulatory compliance, operational efficiency, and ultimately, patient outcomes for many years.
Laboratories typically begin the search for a new LIS when existing pain points or significant changes make their current system untenable. One of the primary triggers is the presence of outdated or unreliable systems. Legacy LIS platforms often become unreliable, difficult to support, and lack essential functionality as laboratories evolve. Frequent system downtimes, slow performance, or the inability to scale to growing test volumes can severely hinder lab operations. For instance, warning signs of an outdated LIS include poor reliability, integration problems, and an inability to fit new workflows, indicating a system that lacks the functionality and flexibility to tackle today’s challenges. Laboratories recognize when their LIS is impeding progress, particularly if it fails to adapt to new tests or regulatory changes, requires excessive manual workarounds, or cannot accommodate process improvements. These issues signal the the laboratory has “outgrown” its current software and requires a more agile solution.
Operational inefficiencies and growth pain points also serve as significant motivators for change. When an LIS becomes a bottleneck, causing workflow delays, data entry errors, or requiring additional labor, it prompts a search for a better solution. Laboratories experiencing persistent bottlenecks or relying on costly manual workarounds, such as using spreadsheets outside the system, often realize that a modern LIS with increased automation could significantly improve productivity. Similarly, rapid growth or the expansion of laboratory services can strain an older system. A laboratory adding new departments or experiencing increased daily test volumes might discover its current software cannot scale or manage the added complexity. In these scenarios, scalability and adaptability become key drivers for replacement. The inability of a legacy LIS to support new specialties, such as molecular diagnostics or anatomic pathology, under a single system is another significant catalyst to seek an upgrade.
Evolving technology ecosystems also frequently compel laboratories to seek new software, with integration gaps being a major factor. If a current LIS cannot interface smoothly with modern instruments, automated analyzers, or other software, laboratories face time-consuming manual data entry. As healthcare IT advances, laboratories increasingly need an LIS that integrates with enterprise electronic health record (EHR) platforms or regional health information exchanges.
A hospital switching its core electronic health record system often triggers an LIS replacement to ensure seamless connectivity. Rather than building complex new interfaces onto an antiquated LIS, organizations may choose a new system that natively supports the necessary integrations. Modernization and cloud technology trends also influence these decisions. If the current system lacks cloud or remote-access capabilities, or cannot support multi-site operations, leadership may initiate a search for a more technologically advanced, future-proof platform.
Regulatory and compliance changes are non-negotiable drivers. If a laboratory’s software struggles to meet new regulatory requirements or accreditation standards, it prompts leadership to find a system that can. For example, updated College of American Pathologists (CAP) checklists or Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) rules might require improved audit trails, quality control (QC) tracking, or data integrity controls. An LIS that cannot easily produce reports or provide traceability for inspections places the laboratory at risk. There is also a heightened emphasis on data security; laboratories handling vast amounts of protected health information require an LIS that stays current with cybersecurity protections. High-profile breaches and stricter enforcement of data privacy encourage laboratories to seek software that is continuously updated for security threats and compliance.
Vendor support and viability issues can also initiate a search for new software, especially if the LIS vendor discontinues product support, ceases operations, or consistently provides poor service. Laboratories depend on their LIS vendor for updates, maintenance, and problem resolution, listing “satisfactory customer service” as a key expectation. If a system becomes “difficult to support” due to vendor neglect or a lack of expertise, laboratories cannot safely continue using it. In other cases, the LIS may simply be at its end-of-life with no future upgrades, compelling the laboratory to find a new platform. Additionally, cost factors play a role; if maintaining an older system (with increasing fees for customizations, interfaces, or licensing) becomes economically unjustifiable, decision-makers may seek a more cost-effective, modern solution. A “high total cost of ownership,” characterized by continuous payments for add-on modules, user licenses, and expensive custom changes, is a clear indication that it is time to consider other vendors.
Finally, competitive and market pressures can drive a software search. A laboratory facing strong competition might seek new software to gain an advantage in efficiency or service offerings. For example, if competitors offer sophisticated physician portals or faster turnaround times enabled by superior software, a laboratory may feel compelled to upgrade its LIS to avoid losing clients. Similarly, business changes, such as a new partnership, acquisition, or offering direct-to-consumer testing, may require capabilities the current system lacks. As one LIS vendor CEO noted, laboratories might be asked by new clients to add novel test panels or custom report formats quickly; if their software cannot comply, they risk losing business to a competitor. Therefore, the need to remain competitive and meet client demands can trigger the pursuit of a more flexible, feature-rich LIS.
Enhancing Lab Efficiency
A modern lab information system software is indispensable for enhancing operational efficiency within clinical laboratories. Rules-based automation, a cornerstone of advanced LIS, significantly reduces turnaround time by eliminating redundant human effort. This automation extends to auto-verification, with one study reporting that rules-based auto verification can automatically validate and release 40â80% of normal results without human review. According to a HIMSS survey, automating the communication between instruments and LIS leads to a 25â40% reduction in manual data entry errors, which are major contributors to diagnostic discrepancies.
Moving from paper-based or manual entry to integrated systems consistently results in higher accuracy and significantly fewer clerical errors, directly contributing to improved patient safety and fewer result corrections. As APHL tells us, laboratories that have moved from paper or manual entry to integrated systems consistently report higher accuracy and fewer clerical errors. A report from ConnectPointz reminds us a general rule of thumb is that human error rates usually hover around 1%. A JAMIA laboratory report cited an error rate as high as 4%. Removing human errors is one of the greatest reasons and the simplest win for a full-featured LIS. Even a small manual error can have serious clinical implications. In one study, approximately 7% of laboratory results entered by hand did not match the instrumentâs output, and 14% of those errors were clinically significant. Furthermore, according to Crelio Health, laboratories using integrated digital workflows report a 25% faster test result delivery compared to laboratories relying on standalone systems. Automating data entry frees laboratory staff from this workload, allowing them to focus on more complex tasks and improve overall productivity.
Interoperability & Integration
The ability of an LIS to integrate with existing and future systems is a top condition for selection in clinical laboratories. Laboratories operate complex instrument networks and must exchange data with numerous entities, including EHRs, reference laboratories, and billing systems. Therefore, decision committees heavily weigh an LIS’s interoperability, including its support for standard interfaces like HL7, ASTM, and API, as well as the ease of connecting to analyzers, middleware, and external databases. As Kim Futrell noted in Medical Laboratory Observer, post-COVID laboratories are repurposing instruments and pursuing personalized medicine, making integration capabilities more crucial than ever. Laboratories typically require laboratory information system vendors demonstrate proven integrations with common laboratory instruments and the ability to interface with hospital or clinic EHRs for electronic orders and results. Some advanced LIS platforms include an embedded interface engine, which can eliminate the need for separate middleware and facilitate seamless connectivity to various instrumentation and other software systems. When selecting a vendor, laboratories will inquire about interface libraries and may prefer vendors with pre-built integrations in environments similar to their own. A vendor’s track record of interoperability and their commitment to integration standards are key factors in making the shortlist for demos or RFPs.
A 2022 study found that seamless EHR integration helped reduce redundant laboratory tests by 22%, improving efficiency and lowering healthcare costs. This simple reduction in redundancy is one of the key reasons to insist on an LIS that can talk to any EHR or EMR. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) found that hospitals with high levels of interoperabilityâwhere data flows smoothly between different systemsâreport a 62% reduction in diagnostic errors and a 30% improvement in care coordination. These statistics underscore the profound impact robust interoperability and integration can have on the quality and efficiency of patient care.
Choosing the Right LIS
Selecting an LIS is a strategic decision that demands careful consideration of several key criteria, including functional fit, compliance with regulatory and quality standards, robust security, scalability, ease of use, and the vendor’s reputation and support. The chosen system must align with your laboratory’s unique test menu, specialties, and volume, with “must-have” features addressing your specific operational needs. Furthermore, the system must support compliance with regulations such as CLIA and CAP by design, offering features like audit trails, QC documentation, and robust cybersecurity measures.
For a comprehensive solution that addresses these critical needs, SCC Soft ComputerÂź offers SoftLabÂź. SoftLabÂź is a modern and efficient lab information system designed for both simple and complex workflows, offering extensive configurability to meet diverse client needs for maximum productivity. It is fully web-based and built for high interoperability, integrating with EMR/HIS, instruments, reference laboratories, and cloud services.