If you’ve spent any time around a clinical laboratory still running on paper, you already know the answer to this question. Requisition forms stacked at the accessioning desk. Handwriting that takes two attempts to read. Sticky notes on specimen bags because there was no better system for flagging something. It works until it doesn’t, and for a lot of labs, “doesn’t” started a while ago.
So what’s actually pushing the move to digital tools like laboratory information systems right now? A few things, and they don’t all get talked about together.
The Staffing Problem Forced the Conversation
The most underrated driver of LIS adoption has nothing to do with software features. It’s bodies, or the lack of them.
Clinical lab staffing has been rough for years. The pipeline of trained medical laboratory scientists never quite kept up with demand, compensation lagged long enough to affect who was choosing the field, and then the pandemic accelerated a wave of retirements labs weren’t ready for. Congress introduced the Medical Laboratory Personnel Shortage Relief Act in 2025, which tells you something — these things don’t usually attract bipartisan attention until the situation has been uncomfortable for a long time.
When you’re short-staffed and test volumes are climbing, you have two options. Hire, which requires people who may not be available. Or get more out of the people you have. A laboratory information system stops asking trained scientists to spend their day on tasks that don’t require a trained scientist — data entry, specimen logging, routing results, generating compliance paperwork. None of that needs a medical laboratory scientist. But all of it eats their time when it’s done by hand.
What the Software Actually Changes
An LIS manages the entire lifecycle of a laboratory test, from the moment an order is placed to the moment a verified result lands in a physician’s EHR. Every handoff in between — accessioning, processing, instrument interfacing, result validation, reporting — runs through the system instead of through a person with a clipboard.
The practical effect is significant. One comparison found that LIS-based accessioning averaged around 14 minutes per procedure versus 29 minutes for paper. That’s half the time, for every specimen, all day. Multiply that across a lab running hundreds or thousands of specimens a week and the operational math gets compelling fast.
Errors drop too, and this part matters more than turnaround time does. Most laboratory mistakes happen before the test even runs — during ordering and accessioning, where the most manual work happens. Barcode-based specimen identification alone eliminates a whole category of mix-up errors. Some labs have seen transcription error reductions of 30% within the first six months of implementation. That has real consequences for patients, not just for audit outcomes.
Compliance Gets a Lot Less Painful
Labs deal with overlapping regulatory requirements from CLIA, CAP, HIPAA, and various payer-specific rules. Staying on top of all of it means documentation, and under a paper-based system, that documentation is always someone’s extra job.
When the LIS is configured well, compliance documentation happens as a byproduct of running the lab. Every accession is logged. Every result is tied to who released it and when. Every critical value notification is captured and timestamped. When an inspector asks for records, you run a report. One hospital lab cut its inspection findings by 40% after automating compliance checks through its LIS. That number gets people’s attention.
Smaller Labs Can Now Afford It
For a long time, serious LIS software platforms were out of reach for smaller independent labs. The upfront cost of on-premise software, server infrastructure, and implementation made the economics hard to justify below a certain volume.
Cloud deployment changed that. The lab pays a subscription instead of a capital expense. A two-pathologist independent practice can now run on the same quality of platform as a large academic medical center without building an IT department to go with it. That’s a big reason adoption has accelerated among smaller labs recently — not because the technology changed dramatically, but because the price did.
The Gap Is Getting Wider
Labs running modern LIS platforms have real-time workflow visibility, automated compliance documentation, instrument integration that eliminates manual transcription, and analytics that surface bottlenecks before they become crises.
Labs still on paper are spending energy maintaining the manual process itself. In a market where reimbursement pressure isn’t easing and staffing isn’t getting easier, that’s not a stable position. The question most labs are grappling with now isn’t whether going digital is worth it. It’s how to make the transition without breaking what’s already working. That’s a harder question, and a more honest one.
Like our Facebook Page here at NasiLemakTech.com for more news and in-depth reviews! Also, join our Facebook Group for insightful information and memes!
Subscribe to our YouTube channel too!
