Feasibility of TLA - Qns
(Questions are taken from "comments" from the previous entry)
1)Is TLA possible to cause unempolyment since it is used to replace human workflow?
Human labour is still required in the analysis phase. Although TLA may be used in a laboratory, human is still needed to analyse the results obtained and also to make sure that the machines are working properly. Furthermore, humans are also needed to perform troubleshooting of machines, which is part of quality control and quality assurance. Hence, TLA will not neccessarily cause unemployment.
2)Is TLA a good choice for the lab to use since there are still contain lot of disadvantage such as possible of random error, need consistent work to keep in peak efficiency, inability in handle paediatic specimens,need multiple lines for the different sample types?
TLA may only be feasible for certain laboratories. As stated in our report, TLA may not be as feasible for microbiology laboratories. This is so as specimens may arrive in different forms hence creating a wide variation in specification. However,automation such as opening of specimen containers in the pre-analytical phase, can still be used. Therefore, the feasibility of TLA highly depends on several factors such as capital, space, volume of daily input and workflow of samples(mentioned in report). Consistency is indeed essestial in order to maintain peak efficiency. Hence, TLA may not be feasible for labs with inconsistent or low daily input samples. In contrast, TLA may be very useful in labs which have consistently high amount of daily input as it has the ability to automate repititive processes and specimen preparation that are time-consuming. TLA may also not be feasible in labs that handle paediatric specimens. Such labs can still use the alternative of TLA, which is the Modular Laboratory Automation (MLA). MLA makes use of automation only in certain phases such as sorting of tubes and decapping.
3)If TLA need a high capital to start up and it is only can be used in lagre lab. What happen to the small scale lab ? Do you mean that they do all the manual work? and Is it possible for them to use TLA since u state that the profit can be seen through a long period?
As mentioned in our report, smaller labs can use modular laboratory automation (MLA). Hence, they do not neccessarily have to do all the manual work. In MLA, only procedures or processes that are known to slow down the tests' turn over time are automated. This includes centrifugation, loading analyzers and sorting out of tubes for storage.Although the benefits from using MLA may be lesser than that of TLA, it is still useful especially for small scale labs as MLA still have the ability to improve turnaround times and decrease human error.
(Questions are taken from "comments" from the previous entry)
1)Is TLA possible to cause unempolyment since it is used to replace human workflow?
Human labour is still required in the analysis phase. Although TLA may be used in a laboratory, human is still needed to analyse the results obtained and also to make sure that the machines are working properly. Furthermore, humans are also needed to perform troubleshooting of machines, which is part of quality control and quality assurance. Hence, TLA will not neccessarily cause unemployment.
2)Is TLA a good choice for the lab to use since there are still contain lot of disadvantage such as possible of random error, need consistent work to keep in peak efficiency, inability in handle paediatic specimens,need multiple lines for the different sample types?
TLA may only be feasible for certain laboratories. As stated in our report, TLA may not be as feasible for microbiology laboratories. This is so as specimens may arrive in different forms hence creating a wide variation in specification. However,automation such as opening of specimen containers in the pre-analytical phase, can still be used. Therefore, the feasibility of TLA highly depends on several factors such as capital, space, volume of daily input and workflow of samples(mentioned in report). Consistency is indeed essestial in order to maintain peak efficiency. Hence, TLA may not be feasible for labs with inconsistent or low daily input samples. In contrast, TLA may be very useful in labs which have consistently high amount of daily input as it has the ability to automate repititive processes and specimen preparation that are time-consuming. TLA may also not be feasible in labs that handle paediatric specimens. Such labs can still use the alternative of TLA, which is the Modular Laboratory Automation (MLA). MLA makes use of automation only in certain phases such as sorting of tubes and decapping.
3)If TLA need a high capital to start up and it is only can be used in lagre lab. What happen to the small scale lab ? Do you mean that they do all the manual work? and Is it possible for them to use TLA since u state that the profit can be seen through a long period?
As mentioned in our report, smaller labs can use modular laboratory automation (MLA). Hence, they do not neccessarily have to do all the manual work. In MLA, only procedures or processes that are known to slow down the tests' turn over time are automated. This includes centrifugation, loading analyzers and sorting out of tubes for storage.Although the benefits from using MLA may be lesser than that of TLA, it is still useful especially for small scale labs as MLA still have the ability to improve turnaround times and decrease human error.
posted by SyafiqaH at
8:32 AM
|
0 comments
