Delayed diagnosis of infectious diseases means missed opportunities for timely treatment, increased risk of complications, and higher overall costs of care. Whether the threat is a new pathogen or a long-established one, the value of early detection is the same: faster action leads to better outcomes.
Clinical laboratories hold much of the power to accelerate earlier detection of infectious diseases. This article explores how smarter workflows, strategic investments, and stronger collaborations can help labs deliver faster, more reliable diagnoses.
The everyday challenges of diagnostic labs
Many labs are stretched thin, with fewer trained professionals handling ever-larger volumes of samples. Recruiting and retaining staff have become universal challenges, and high turnover makes consistent training difficult.
Shortages of skilled staff become even more critical when routine clinical testing collides with public health surveillance and unexpected outbreaks. For example, during influenza season, or worse, when a novel virus emerges, backlogs can build quickly, slowing down reporting at the very moment speed matters most.
Technology is advancing, but adoption is uneven. Although molecular assays and sequencing are transforming diagnostics, many labs still rely on semi-manual processes. Paper-based tracking and siloed instruments create inefficiencies that delay results and increase the risk of errors.
On top of that, regulatory and quality demands never ease. The requirements for validation, documentation, and compliance add layers of work that compete directly with throughput.
Adding to the complexity, the test menu itself keeps expanding. Each year brings new assays and platforms, and labs face the dual challenge of deciding which to adopt and how to integrate them without disrupting established workflows.
By turning these pressure points into areas of innovation, labs can lead the way in detecting infectious diseases earlier and with greater confidence.
How labs can drive earlier detection of infectious disease
Bring testing in-house
Outsourcing can save costs in the short term, but it increases turnaround time. By moving key tests in-house, labs can regain control over speed and quality.
Take the early stages of COVID-19 as an example. Some hospitals relied on external reference labs and waited more than a week for results. Facilities that brought PCR testing in-house reduced turnaround time to less than 24 hours. This change improved patient management, reducing unnecessary isolation days and hospital costs.
A recent study in a small private laboratory compared in-house and outsourced testing and reported interesting results: average turnaround time was three hours for in-house tests versus more than 24 hours when outsourced, and error rates were nearly halved. Costs per test were also lower when testing was internalized. Staff interviews emphasized the sense of control and quality assurance gained from in-house workflows, while also acknowledging that outsourcing remained indispensable for low-volume, highly specialized diagnostics.
These findings suggest that even partial shifts, such as running urgent or high-volume tests in-house while outsourcing rare assays, can be beneficial. For small laboratories, a hybrid model provides speed and reliability for patient care while keeping costs manageable for specialized needs.
Rethink workflows for efficiency
A careful review of operations can reveal clear opportunities for improvement.
One area of impact is sample accessioning. Manual data entry is one of the most common sources of error in diagnostics. Automated accessioning systems reduce transcription mistakes and ensure accurate linkage between samples and patient records. Beyond accuracy, automation frees staff from repetitive data handling, thereby improving the utilization of their skills.
Pooling strategies also offer practical advantages. During outbreaks or mass-screening campaigns, combining samples into a single run reduces costs and preserves capacity. Only positive pools need to be retested, a method already proven effective in infectious disease screening programs such as blood donation testing and opportunistic chlamydia and gonorrhea screening.
Data visibility can also improve efficiency. Dashboards that monitor turnaround times, test volumes, or reagent stock in real time allow managers to identify and address problems before they grow. This proactive oversight helps maintain steady operations and reliable service for patients.
Importantly, not all improvements depend on new technology. Physical layout and ergonomics can also make a measurable difference. At the Cleveland Clinic, for instance, redesigning workstations cut the number of times staff had to leave their bench from 38 percent to just nine percent. Such improvements can boost efficiency and performance.
Finally, involving staff directly in improvement efforts is often an effective strategy. This enables lab managers to identify ways to reduce delays, prevent errors, and improve daily work while fostering a culture of continuous improvement.
Evaluate advanced technology and automation
When applied thoughtfully, automation can reduce repetitive work and enhance consistency in laboratory results.
For example, sample-to-answer systems that automate the full testing process with minimal staff input are becoming increasingly appealing. By consolidating steps, these systems reduce turnaround time and decrease the chance of errors introduced during handoffs. For busy diagnostic labs, they also simplify training, since staff can become proficient on one platform rather than managing several different devices.
Another promising tool is AI-assisted microscopy and image analysis. Many infectious disease diagnostics still rely on slide review. Algorithms that pre-screen slides or highlight suspicious fields reduce review time and help maintain accuracy, particularly in high-volume settings, resource-limited settings, or during seasonal surges. Recent research from Karolinska Institute demonstrated that AI-supported digital microscopy improved the detection of intestinal parasites in stool samples, reducing reliance on highly specialized staff and ensuring more consistent results.
When adopting new technology, ensure it integrates with your laboratory information system and is user-friendly for staff. Piloting on a small scale, actively seeking staff feedback, and scaling up gradually increase the chances of successful adoption and return on investment.
Build strong vendor partnerships
Vendors can be allies in training, troubleshooting, and long-term planning. Labs that cultivate collaborative relationships often gain early access to innovations, on-site technical support during crises, and even input into product development.
The key is to move beyond transactional relationships. By sharing your lab’s pain points openly and involving vendors in problem-solving discussions, you create opportunities for tailored support. In many cases, their expertise can reveal solutions that might not be apparent internally.
Collaboration can extend to initiatives beyond day-to-day operations. Labs can participate in vendor-led opportunities such as site visits to manufacturing facilities, joint educational workshops, or even vendor-sponsored research projects. Vendors, in turn, can support lab initiatives by engaging in scientific meetings, contributing to professional societies, or collaborating on presentations and publications. Hiring laboratory professionals with hands-on experience also helps vendors design solutions that are practical and customer-focused.
From responders to leaders in detection
The pressure to detect infectious diseases earlier isn’t going away. In fact, with climate change, greater human mobility, and antimicrobial resistance, the need is only growing.
The future belongs to labs that take a proactive role in improving the detection and management of infectious diseases. This involves fostering a culture where staff feel supported, closely monitoring workflow data, and remaining open to new tools that can enhance detection speed and accuracy.