PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 10120721

Pathlab III makes a comeback.

Abstract

In the last couple of weeks, two distinctly different documents crossed my desk. The first was a 1989 industry trends report from Ron Johnson. The second was a Laboratory Systems Market report from Sheldon I. Dorenfest & Associates. As I reviewed both documents, the first thing I noticed was the major difference in the systems sales and client lists between the two reports. As an example, Dorenfest had recorded 95 total 3M clients and Johnson's report showed 144. All other companies were also very different. I suppose one discrepancy comes about by Dorenfest asking hospital users whom they have as vendors, while Johnson asks the vendors who their clients are. All this aside, while reading the Dorenfest report, I finally wandered down to the reports on the laboratory vendors and read with awe the one-liner on 3M's Pathlab III system, "No longer a force." A sensational statement, I thought. After reading these reports I decided to call a few experts in the lab field that I thought might give me a better picture of where 3M was in the lab business. To these calls I also added some conversations I have had with some 3M management.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B W Childs. 1990. Pathlab III makes a comeback.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10120721/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods.

CONTEXT: Notifiable disease surveillance is essential to rapidly identify and respond to outbreaks so that further illness can be prevented. Automating reports from clinical laboratories has been proposed to reduce underreporting and delays. OBJECTIVE: To compare the timeliness and completeness of a prototypal electronic reporting system with that of conventional laboratory reporting. DESIGN: Laboratory-based reports for 5 conditions received at a state health department between July 1 and December 31, 1998, were reviewed. Completeness of coverage for each reporting system was estimated using capture-recapture methods. SETTING: Three statewide private clinical laboratories in Hawaii. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and date of reports received, by reporting system, laboratory, and pathogen; completeness of data fields. RESULTS: A total of 357 unique reports of illness were identified; 201 (56%) were received solely through the automated electronic system, 32 (9%) through the conventional system only, and 124 (35%) through both. Thus, electronic reporting resulted in a 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.6) increase in reports. Electronic reports arrived an average of 3.8 (95% CI, 2.6-5.0) days earlier than conventional reports. Of 21 data fields common to paper and electronic formats, electronic reports were significantly more likely to be complete for 12 and for 1 field with the conventional system. The estimated completeness of coverage for electronic reporting was 80% (95% CI, 75%-85%) [corrected] compared with 38% (95% CI, 36%-41%) [corrected] for the conventional system. CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation, electronic reporting more than doubled the total number of laboratory-based reports received. On average, the electronic reports were more timely and more complete, suggesting that electronic reporting may ultimately facilitate more rapid and comprehensive institution of disease control measures.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems