Laboratory Informatics and the Laboratory Information System

  • Daniel F. Cowan
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


The primary objective of clinical laboratorians is to provide the highest possible quality of service to patients and those who care for patients. High-quality service encompasses accurate and precise analysis, timely, clear, and concise reporting, and delivery of the service to a location in a format most valuable to the user of the service. Quality has also come to include elements of efficiency, effectiveness, analysis of diagnostic utility, and decision support.1,2 Delivery of the service has come to mean that integration into a comprehensive electronic medical record (EMR) is to be expected.3,4 Although it is widely accepted that about 70% of the information used in the management of patients comes from the clinical and anatomical pathology laboratories,5 in one large medical center in which information flow is tracked, about 94% of requests to the EMR are for laboratory results.4 In addition, a critical quality feature is the transformation of laboratory data into information.2,5,6–8


Expert System Medical Informatics Laboratory Information System Chief Information Officer Laboratory Informatics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kazmierczak SC. Statistical techniques for evaluating the diagnostic utility of laboratory tests. Clin Chem Lab Med 1999; 37:1001–1009PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aller RD, Balis UJ. Informatics, imaging, and interoperability. In: Henry JB, editor. Clinical diagnosis and Management by Laboratory Methods. W. B. Philadelphia Saunders. 2001:108–137Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Connelly DP. Integrating integrated laboratory information into health care delivery systems. Clin Lab Med 1999; 19:277–297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forsman R. The electronic medical record: Implications for the laboratory. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2000; 14:292–295PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Becich MJ. Information management: moving from test results to clinical information. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2000; 14:296–300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marques MB, McDonald JM. Defining/measuring the value of clinical information. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2000; 14:275–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller WG. The changing role of the medical technologist from technologist to information specialist. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2000; 14:285–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wills S. The century laboratory: Information technology and health care. Clin Leadersh Manag Rev 2000; 14:289–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elevitch F, Treling C, Spackman K, et al. A clinical laboratory systems survey: A challenge for the decade. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117:12–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miller RA, Shultz EK, Harrison JH Jr. Is there a role for expert systems in diagnostic anatomic pathology? Hum Pathol 2000; 28:999–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rashbass J. The impact of information technology on histopathology. Histopathology 2000; 36:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman BA, Dieterli RC. Integrating information systems in hospitals: Bringing the outside inside. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1990; 114:113–116Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boar BH. The Art of Strategic Planning for Information Technology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laudon KC, Laudon JP. Management Information Systems: Organization and Technology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 4th ed., 1996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cowan DF. Quality assurance in anatomic pathology: An information system approach. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1990; 114:129–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman BA, Dito WR. Managing the information product of clinical laboratories. (Editorial) Clin Lab Man Rev 1992; Jan/Feb: 5–8Google Scholar
  17. Lincoln TL, Essin D. Information technology, health care, and the future: what are the impUcations for the clinical laboratory? Clin Lab Man Rev 1992; Jan/Feb: 94–107Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    St. Louis, P. Status of point of care testing: Promise realities and possibilities. Clin Biochem2000; 33:427–440Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedman, BA. Informatics as a separate section within a department of pathology. Amer J Clin Pathol 1990; 94:(Supp 1) S2-S6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buffone GJ, Beck JR. Informatics. A subspecialty of pathology. Amer J Clin Pathol 1993; 100:75–81Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedman CP, Elstein AS, Wolf FM, et al. Enhancement of clinician’s diagnostic reasoning by computer-based consultation: A multisite study of two systems. JAMA 1999;282:1851–1856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford 1996Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Collen WF Origins of medical informatics. West J Med 1996; 145:778–785Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greenes RA, Shortliffe EH. Medical informatics: An emerging academic discipline and institutional priority. JAMA 1990; 263:1114–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Manual 1997Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel F. Cowan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations