Now more than ever before, clinical labs are under pressure to operate efficiently, accurately, and timely, all while still making money. Doctors and patients have come to expect a 24-hour turnaround for most tests. Clinical labs throughout the United States have been slashing budgets, many literally to the point of no return. At least 13 public health labs in four states have shuttered since 2003, which posed a serious problem when COVID-19 hit because resources did not meet demand.
Labs still in business know the challenges of maintaining budgets while operating at capacity and could list the obstacles categorically: Issues related to equipment, staffing, data management, and workflow are well known, from the techs and managers in the lab all the way up the administrative chain to the finance managers and business improvement teams. Cost containment is on the lips of nearly everyone, but not at the expense of quality, turnaround time, flexibility, and accuracy.
To benefit the bottom line, laboratory professionals are looking for ways to improve overall operations, whether they think every area is running as smoothly as possible or whether they’ve already diagnosed a weakness in their processes. But where do clinical lab pros like you begin? How do you perform diagnostics of their own systems? Benchmarks can be deceiving.
This timely white paper considers how using an educational program, developed for laboratory technologists, managers, pathologists, finance managers, business improvement teams—even learning and development managers—can help medical labs measure systems and practices, identify problems, correct those problems, and ultimately boost overall operations. By following a specific process covered in this paper, you can strengthen your lab’s overall performances and improve its bottom line.
Find these, and many more indispensable insights in this White Paper:
Identify problems—some of them completely hidden even when a lab seems like it is running efficiently and smoothly—to avoid medical errors that result from breakdowns in operations
Understand your lab’s business as well as you understand a petri dish, as financial belts are tightened and you continue to be asked to look for efficiencies to drive cost containment
How an educational program to help lab staff and management become proficient in the concepts necessary to improve laboratory processes can help stakeholders understand ways in which lab resourcing and process design affects its clinical and financial performance
Learn how one pathology manager reduced his lab’s turnaround time from over 3 hours to less than 2 hours, as well as reducing plastic waste and therefore laboratory waste-handling costs, among other improvements
White Paper Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1: Realizing Operational Weaknesses in the Clinical Laboratory and Mapping a Way Through
Chapter 2: Need for Business Knowledge Presents Unexpected Learning Curve for Rising and Seasoned Medical Laboratory Leaders
Chapter 3: How an Educational Program Measured and Analyzed Performance to Improve Clinical Laboratory Operations
CONCLUSION
Science has always been the paramount focus of laboratory managers, but that is no longer sufficient. This in-depth white paper will show you how to equip your clinical laboratory staff and business administrators with the skills necessary to evaluate, measure and analyze in a way that can improve lab operations and practices, and improving the bottom line.
Investing in educational courses can prove beneficial your clinical lab, regardless of whether you are evaluating possible changes, want to diagnose areas of weakness, have new or inexperienced leadership, are seeking ways to contain costs, or wanting to improve virtually every aspect of your laboratory operations.
Learn what you need to know about this innovative trend by downloading your FREE copy of “Translating Clinical Laboratory Science Into Business Objectives” below.
Produced in partnership with:
Download the White Paper now by completing the form below.
Access to some white papers may require registration. In exchange for providing this free content, we may share your information with the companies whose content you choose to view. By accessing the white paper, you’re agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Though experts say an antigen test is not as accurate as PCR tests, its low cost, ease of use, and widespread availability make it a boon for clinical labs performing COVID-19 testing
As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, explained on Face the Nation, “this kind of technology is a real game changer … it’s a very rapid test that could be used in a doctor’s office. Doctors now have about forty thousand of these Sofia machines already installed in their offices … you do a simple nasal swab and the test itself scans for the antigens that the virus produces.
“The test is about 85% sensitive. So, let’s say a hundred people come into a doctor’s office who have COVID-19, eighty-five of them are going to be able to be tested positive with this test very quickly. It’s a cheap test. It’ll probably be about five dollars a test and you can get a result within five minutes … you’re getting a very fast result and you can start to take action immediately.
“The company itself said that they’re going to be able to produce about two hundred thousand of these tests starting right away. But in several weeks, they’ll be able to produce up to 1.5 million a week. So, this dramatically expands our testing capacity as long as doctors are able to run these tests in their offices.”
In an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD (above), said, “These antigen-based tests aren’t as reliable, meaning they’re not as sensitive. So, they’re going to miss some patients who have COVID. But in the hands of a doctor who already has a high index of suspicion that the patient may have the disease … they allow you to dramatically expand testing. And they’re very cheap. They’re very easy to perform. And again, most doctors have these machines already in their offices.” (Photo copyright: US Food and Drug Administration.)
Other LDTs That Have Received EUAs
Here’s a look at other laboratory-developed tests from major manufacturers that have received emergency-use authorizations from the FDA:
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s m2000 RealTime system, which is installed in about 200 US medical laboratories, the company says. It can run up to 470 patient samples in 24 hours. As of a May 11 statement, the company said it had shipped more than two million tests in the US.
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s Alinity m system, which the company describes as its “most advanced laboratory molecular instrument,” with the ability to run up to 1,080 tests in 24 hours, according to a press release.
This is a rapid test designed for use with the ID Now system, a compact portable instrument for point-of-care settings such as urgent care clinics. As of May 11, Abbott said it had shipped more than 1.7 million tests in the US, and that it planned to increase manufacturing capacity to two million tests per month.
However, the test has encountered some stumbling blocks. On May 14, the FDA issued an alert stating that the ID Now COVID-19 test could produce inaccurate negative results. This came after researchers at NYU Langone Health, Northwell Health, and Cleveland Clinic reported problems with the test, according to MedTech Dive. Abbott issued a statement suggesting that the problems were due to improper sample collection and handling, however, the FDA said that Abbott had agreed to conduct post-market studies to identify the cause of the false negatives and suggest remedial actions.
This is a qualitative test designed to detect the presence of IgG antibodies following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The FDA authorized use of the assay on Abbott’s Architect i2000SR system in April, and then followed up with a May 11 EUA for its use on the Alinity i system. In a statement, Abbott said it planned to ship 30 million tests globally starting in May.
In a March statement, the FDA touted this as the first point-of-care COVID-19 test to receive an EUA. The company estimates the detection time as approximately 45 minutes. It is designed for use with Cepheid’s GeneXpert Dx diagnostic software and GeneXpert Infinity systems, which have nearly 5,000 US installations, according to a Cepheid statement.
This test runs on Hologic’s Panther system, which, according to a Hologic press release, can provide results in about three hours and run more than 1,000 tests per day. The company claims that more than 1,000 Panther systems are installed in US labs, and that it expects to produce an average of one million tests per week.
Ortho’s antibody test is designed for use with its VITROS XT 7600, 3600, 5600, and ECi/ECiQ immunodiagnostic systems, which, the company says are installed in more than 1,000 US labs. The Total Reagent Pack is a qualitative test that detects the presence of all antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
On April 24, Ortho announced it had received another FDA EUA, this one for its Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, which detects the presence of IgG antibodies. In a statement, the company said it expects to produce “several million” IgG tests per month.
This test is designed for use with Roche’s cobas 6800 and 8800 systems. The 6800 can process up to 384 results in an eight-hour shift, Roche says, compared with 1,056 results for the 8800 model. The company says results are available in about 3.5 hours. In a statement, Roche said it planned to ship 400,000 tests per week.
Roche describes this as a qualitative antibody test that can be used on cobas e series immunoassay analyzers. Testing time is 18 minutes. As of May 19, the test was live at more than 20 US labs, “with plans in the next several weeks to increase to more than 200 commercial and hospital lab sites with the ability to perform millions of tests per week,” the company stated in a press release.
It’s likely the FDA will continue to issue emergency-use authorizations as the agency receives more applications from IVD manufacturers.
This is another example of technology companies working to develop medical laboratory testing that consumers can use without requiring a doctor’s order for the test
Here’s new technology that could be a gamechanger in the fight against COVID-19 if further research allows it to be used in patient care. The goal of the researchers involved is to enable individuals to test for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus from home with the assistance of a smartphone app enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI).
Such an approach could bypass clinical laboratories by allowing potentially infected people to confirm their exposure to the coronavirus and then consult directly with healthcare providers for diagnosis and treatment.
The at-home test is being developed through a partnership between French pharmaceutical company Sanofi and San Jose, Calif.-based Luminostics, creator of a smartphone-based diagnostic platform that “can detect or measure bacteria, viruses, proteins, and hormones from swabs, saliva, urine, and blood,” according to the company’s website.
Users who wish to self-test collect a specimen from their nose via a swab and then insert that swab into a device attached to a smartphone. The device uses chemicals and nanoparticles to examine the collected sample. If the individual has the virus, the nanoparticles in the specimen glow in a way visible to smartphone cameras. The device generates data and AI in the smartphone app processes a report. The app informs the user of the results of this COVID-19 test, and it also enables the user to connect to a doctor directly through telehealth video conferencing to discuss a diagnosis.
“This partnering project could lead to another important milestone in Sanofi’s fight against COVID-19,” said Alan Main, Sanofi’s Executive Vice President, Consumer Healthcare, and Chair of the Global Self-Care Federation, in a press release. “The development of a self-testing solution with Luminostics could help provide clarity to individuals—in minutes—on whether or not they are infected.” (Photo copyright: Global Self-Care Federation.)
According to the press release, the diagnostic platform is composed of:
an iOS/Android app to instruct a user on how to run the test, capture and process data to display test results, and then to connect users with a telehealth service based on the results;
a reusable adapter compatible with most types of smartphones; and
consumables for specimen collection, preparation, and processing.
The COVID-19 test results are available within 30 minutes or less after collecting the sample, notes the Sanofi press release. Advantages cited for having a fast, over-the-counter (OTC) solution for COVID-19 testing include:
easy access and availability;
reduced contact with others, which lowers infection risk; and
timely decision-making for any necessary treatments.
The two companies plan to have their COVID-19 home-testing application available for the public before the end of the year, subject to government regulatory clearances. They intend to make their OTC solution available through consumer and retail outlets as well as ecommerce sites.
Can Sound Be Used to Diagnose COVID-19?
Another smartphone app under development records the sound of coughs to determine if an individual has contracted COVID-19. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne or EPFL) in Switzerland created the Cough-based COVID-19 Fast Screening Project (Coughvid), which utilizes a mobile application and AI to analyze the sound of a person’s cough to determine if it resembles that of a person infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
The inspiration for this project came from doctors who reported that their COVID-19 patients have a cough with a very distinctive sound that differs from other illnesses. The cough associated with COVID-19, according the EPFL website, is a dry cough that has a chirping intake of breath at the end.
“The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that 67.7% of COVID-19 patients exhibit a ‘dry cough,’ meaning that no mucus is produced, unlike the typical ‘wet cough’ that occurs during a cold or allergies. Dry coughs can be distinguished from wet coughs by the sound they produce, which raises the question of whether the analysis of the cough sounds can give some insights about COVID-19. Such cough sounds analysis has proven successful in diagnosing respiratory conditions like pertussis [Whooping Cough], asthma, and pneumonia,” states the EPFL website.
“We have a lot of contact with medical doctors and some of them told us that they usually were able to distinguish, quite well, from the sound of the cough, if patients were probably infected,” Tomas Teijeiro Campo, PhD, Postdoc Researcher with EPFL and one of the Coughvid researchers, told Business Insider.
The Coughvid app is in its early developmental stages and the researchers behind the study are still collecting data to train their AI. To date, the scientists have gathered more than 15,000 cough samples of which 1,000 came from people who had been diagnosed with COVID-19. The app is intended to be used as a tool to help people decide whether to seek out a COVID-19 clinical laboratory test or medical treatment.
“For now, we have this nice hypothesis. There are other work groups working on more or less the same approach, so we think it has a point,” said Teijeiro Campo. “Soon we will be able to say more clearly if it’s something that’s right for the moment.”
With additional research, innovative technologies such as these could change how clinical laboratories interact with diagnosticians and patients during pandemics. And, if proven accurate and efficient, smartphone apps in the diagnosis process could become a standard, potentially altering the path of biological specimens flowing to medical laboratories.
Washington Post investigation outlines scientists’ frustrations in the early days of the pandemic, as they worked to deploy laboratory-developed tests for the novel coronavirus
In the wake of the failed rollout of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 diagnostic test last February, many CLIA-certified academic and public health laboratories were ready, and had the necessary resources, to develop their own coronavirus molecular diagnostic tests to help meet the nationwide demand for clinical laboratory testing. However, the response from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was, in essence, “not so fast.”
In this second part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing, we continue our coverage of the Washington Post (WP) investigation that detailed the regulatory hurdles which blocked private laboratories from deploying their own laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) for COVID-19. The report is based on previously unreported email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with scientists and officials involved.
The CDC’s COVID-19 test kits began arriving at public health laboratories on February 8, just 18 days after the first case of the novel coronavirus was confirmed in the US. As the WP noted in an earlier analysis, titled, “What Went Wrong with Coronavirus Testing in the US,” the CDC’s decision to develop its own test was not surprising. “The CDC will develop [its] own test that is suited to an American healthcare context and the regulations that exist here,” explained Jeremy Konyndyk, Senior Policy Fellow at the Center for Global Development. “That’s how we normally would do things.”
But state and local public health laboratories quickly discovered that the CDC test kits were flawed due to problems with one of the reagents. While numerous academic, research, and commercial labs had the capability to produce their own COVID-19 PCR tests, FDA rules initially prevented them from doing so without a federal Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
The bureaucratic hurdles arose due to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar’s January 31 declaration that COVID-19 was a “health emergency” in the US. By doing so, HHS triggered a mandate that requires CLIA-certified labs at universities, research centers, and hospitals to seek an EUA from the FDA before deploying any laboratory-developed tests.
Scientists, Clinical Laboratories Frustrated by Bureaucratic Delays and Red Tape
To make matters worse, the EUA process was neither simple nor fast, which exasperated lab scientists and clinical laboratory administrators. “In their private communications, scientists at academic, hospital, and public health labs—one layer removed from federal agency operations—expressed dismay at the failure to move more quickly, and frustration at bureaucratic demands that delayed their attempts to develop alternatives to the CDC test,” wrote the WP investigators.
In a Feb. 27 email to other microbiologists, Marc Couturier, PhD, Medical Director at ARUP Laboratories, a national reference laboratory network located in Utah, voiced his irritation with the red tape that stymied private laboratory development of COVID-19 tests. He wrote, “We have the skills and resources as a community, but we are collectively paralyzed by a bloated bureaucratic/administrative process,” reported the WP.
Keith Jerome, MD, PhD (above), Head of the Virology Division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, maintains federal regulations muted one of the nation’s greatest assets in the fight against COVID-19. “The great strength the US has always had, not just in virology, is that we’ve always had a wide variety of people and groups working on any given problem,” he told MIT Technology Review. “When we decided all coronavirus testing had to be done by a single entity, even one as outstanding as CDC, we basically gave away our greatest strength.” (Photo copyright: Jonathan Hamilton/NPR.)
‘FDA Should Not Treat Labs Like They Are Creating Commercial Products’
According to Kaiser Health News (KHN), Greninger was able to identify one of the nation’s first cases of community-acquired COVID-19 by taking “advantage of a regulatory loophole that allowed the lab to test samples obtained for research purposes from UW’s hospitals.”
But navigating the EUA process was a different story, Greninger told the WP. He spent more than 100 hours filling out forms and collecting information needed for the EUA application. After emailing the application to the FDA, Greninger received a reply containing eCopy Guidance telling him he needed to resubmit the information to the Document Control Center (DCC) at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), a federal agency Greninger knew nothing about. Another FDA rule required that the submission be copied to a hard disk and mailed to the DCC.
In an interview with ProPublica, Greninger stated that after he submitted his COVID-19 test—which copies the CDC protocol—an FDA reviewer told him he would need to prove the test would not show a positive result for someone infected with either a SARS or MERS coronavirus. The first SARS coronavirus disappeared in mid-2003 and the only two cases of MERS in the US were diagnosed in 2014. Greninger told ProPublica it took him two days to locate a clinical laboratory that could provide the materials he needed.
Greninger maintains the FDA should not treat all clinical laboratories as though they are making a commercial product. “I think it makes sense to have this regulation when you’re going to sell 100,000 widgets across the US. That’s not who we are,” he told ProPublica.
FDA Changes Course
Under pressure from clinical laboratory scientists and medical doctors, by the end of February the FDA had issued new policy that enabled CLIA-certified laboratories to immediately use their validated COVID-19 diagnostics while awaiting an EUA. “This policy change was an unprecedented action to expand access to testing,” said the FDA in a statement.
Since then, the FDA has continued to respond—albeit slowly—to scientists’ complaints about regulations that hampered the nation’s COVID-19 testing capacity.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists involved in testing for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus should monitor the FDA’s actions and be aware of when and if certain temporary changes the agency implemented during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic become permanent.
To read part one of our two-part coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation, click here.
Previously unreported email messages and documents paint vivid picture of public health laboratory officials’ dismay and frustration over testing delays
Between late January and early March, Clinical laboratory leaders watched with dismay as federal government missteps crippled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rollout of its COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the early days of the pandemic. The resulting lack of testing capacity enabled the novel coronavirus’ spread across the United States.
This first part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing covers how investigators at the Washington Post (WP) have produced a timeline describing the CDC initial failure to produce a reliable laboratory test for COVID-19 and the regulatory hurdles that blocked medical laboratories from developing their own tests for the virus. The WP’s report is based on previously unreleased email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with medical laboratory scientists and officials involved.
A New York Times report on the federal government’s initial review of the testing kit failure pinned the blame on sloppy practices at CDC laboratories in Atlanta and a lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing. However, the WP reported that COVID-19 testing kits were delayed due to a “glaring scientific breakdown” at the central lab, created when the CDC facilities that assembled the kits “violated sound manufacturing practices” that resulted in cross contamination of testing compounds.
The US and other countries have criticized China for a lack of transparency about the virus’ emergence, which came to light on December 31, 2019, when China reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) timeline. A week later, Chinese authorities identified the pneumonia-like illness as being caused by a new novel coronavirus.
In the US, the first case of COVID-19 was found January 21 in a Washington State man who had traveled to Wuhan. But in the weeks that followed, the US government’s inability to establish a systematic testing policy became the catalyst for the virus’ ultimate spread to more than two million people, notes the CDC website.
ProPublica, which conducted its own investigation into the early stages of the government’s coronavirus response, blamed the failures on “chaos” at the CDC and “an antiquated public health system trying to adapt on the fly.”
The CDC’s first mistake may have been underestimating the danger COVID-19 posed to public health in this country. During a January 15 conference call, CDC scientists assured state and county public health officials that the agency was developing a COVID-19 diagnostic test which soon would be available, but which may not be needed “unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate right now,” reported the WP.
A week later, an interview with CNBC, President Trump said, “We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
CDC scientists designed their test in seven days, which, according to the WP investigators, is “a stunningly short period of time for a healthcare system built around the principles of medical quality and patient safety, not speed.” But when those initial CDC-made tests arrived at a New York City public health laboratory on February 8, lab technicians discovered the COVID-19 assays often indicated the presence of the coronavirus in samples that the lab’s scientists knew did not contain the virus.
When the scientists informed Lab Director Jennifer Rakeman, PhD, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, her response, according to the WP, was “Oh, s—. What are we going to do now?”
That night, Director Jill Taylor, PhD, Director of New York State’s Wadsworth Center public health reference laboratory, emailed state health officials, stating, “There is a technical problem in one of the reagents which invalidates the assay and will not allow us to perform the assay,” reported the WP. “I’m sorry not to have better news.”
Scott Becker (above), Executive Director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), voiced his concerns about the CDC’s flawed COVID-19 test kits in an email to a CDC official, reported the WP. “The states and their governors are going to come unglued,” Becker wrote, adding, “If the CDC doesn’t get ahead of this, it will be a disaster.” (Photo copyright: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post.)
‘The Silence from CDC is Deafening’
On February 10, Joanne Bartkus, PhD, then-Lab Director of the Minnesota Health of Department, wrote to APHL Executive Director Scott Becker: “The silence from CDC … is deafening. What is going on?” reported the WP.
By the end of February, the Associated Press (AP) reported that only 472 patients had been tested for COVID-19 nationwide. By comparison, South Korea, which identified its first case of COVID-19 on the same day as the US, was testing 1,000 people per day.
A WHO spokesperson told the WP that, “… no discussions occurred between WHO and CDC (or other US government agencies) about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the US.” When the CDC’s original COVID-19 test kit failed, there may not have been a Plan B. This may explain why the opportunity to contain COVID-19 through surveillance testing was lost during the weeks it took to design a fix for the CDC test and loosen regulations so clinical laboratories could develop their own tests.
As medical laboratory scientists and clinical laboratory leaders know, the lack of early COVID-19 testing was a public health failure and painted a false picture of the virus’ spread. Nearly five months after the first case of the virus was confirmed in the US, testing capacity may only now be outpacing demand.
Click here to read part two of our coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation.
e, clinical labs are under pressure to operate efficiently, accurately, and timely, all while still making money. Doctors and patients have come to expect a 24-hour turnaround for most tests. Clinical labs throughout the United States have been slashing budgets, many literally to the point of no return. At least 13 public health labs in four states have shuttered since 2003, which posed a serious problem when COVID-19 hit because resources did not meet demand.
