[ The system the lab actually runs on ]
A laboratory information system covering accession, worklists, analyser interfacing, validation, authorisation and reporting — with the audit trail a NABL assessor will ask for.
A laboratory information system covering accession, worklists, analyser interfacing, validation, authorisation and reporting — with the audit trail a NABL assessor will ask for.
Tell us which analysers you runAccession, aliquot, run, result, validation, authorisation, amendment. NABL does not ask whether you did it; it asks you to show the trail.
Bidirectional interfacing over HL7 or ASTM so results arrive automatically and worklists go out. Manual transcription is the main source of reporting error.
Reference ranges by age and sex, delta checks against previous results, critical value flags and automatic release rules for what is safe to release.
A corrected report supersedes rather than replaces, with the original retained and the reason recorded. Overwriting a released result is not acceptable.
Accession through authorisation — registration, barcodes, worklists, results, validation and signed reports, with the audit trail behind all of it.
Bidirectional interfacing to your instruments so orders go out and results come back without transcription, with a queue for anything that fails.
The reporting a NABL assessment asks for: internal QC, Levey-Jennings, TAT analysis, amendment logs and user access history.
Departments, analysers, sample types, worklists, who validates and who authorises. Every lab does this differently and the system has to follow yours.
Tests, methods, units, reference ranges by demographic, critical values and TAT. This is the reference data everything else depends on.
Registration, barcode generation, aliquoting and sample routing to departments, with rejection reasons captured at receipt.
Bidirectional HL7 or ASTM per instrument, with a manual entry path and a queue for results that fail to parse.
Delta checks, range flags, technologist validation and pathologist authorisation with a digital signature, plus rules for auto-release where appropriate.
Formatted reports, delivery to patient and referrer, amendment handling, and audit and QC reporting an assessor can be shown.
A LIMS is judged on two things: whether results reach the right report without anyone retyping them, and whether the lab can prove what happened to a sample. The first is analyser interfacing. The second is an audit trail that records who did what and when, including the things that went wrong.
The commonest failure we are asked to fix is a system that records the happy path beautifully and has no answer for a rejected sample, a repeated run or an amended report. Those are not edge cases in a laboratory — they happen every day, and an assessor will ask about exactly them.
Transcribing a result from an analyser screen is where mistakes enter. Bidirectional interfacing is the single highest-value part of a LIMS.
A released result is a record. Corrections create a new version with a reason, and the original stays retrievable.
QC charts, TAT analysis, amendment and access logs designed as reports from the start, not assembled the week before an audit.
A dedicated interfacing layer handles instrument quirks and rules before results reach the LIMS, which has made multi-analyser labs considerably easier to support.
Authorisation with a verifiable signature rather than a scanned image is now expected, and it strengthens the amendment trail too.
With ABDM and referrer integrations, labs are increasingly asked for values rather than documents. Storing both from the start avoids a painful retrofit.
In most cases yes. Instruments that speak HL7 or ASTM are straightforward; older ones may need a serial connection or middleware. We ask for the make, model and interface specification of each analyser before quoting, because the instrument list is the main driver of both cost and timeline.
Let’s talk about your lims project. No obligation, just a conversation.
Next service
Blood Bank Management