Laboratory Workflow Bottlenecks: An Evaluation Checklist

Laboratory bottlenecks are not always caused by a lack of equipment or processing capacity. In many cases, delays occur because highly trained professionals are spending time on tasks that could be streamlined through better software, workflow design, or IT infrastructure. Before investing in new technology, laboratories should identify exactly where time is being lost.

A useful evaluation checklist should separate physical limitations from cognitive and digital workflow limitations—and help laboratories determine where technology can have the greatest impact.

Hardware Check: Where Does Physical Processing Slow Down?

The first step is to examine the physical workflow. In digital pathology, for example, delays may occur during slide loading, scanning, or image processing. A scanner may deliver excellent image quality but still become a bottleneck if its stage capacity is limited or if staff must repeatedly load and unload slides.

Labs should ask:

How many slides can the system process in a single batch?

How long does scanning take per slide?

Are staff frequently waiting for a scanner to become available?

Does equipment capacity match the laboratory’s daily workload?

Are differences in workload or case complexity creating peaks that overwhelm available capacity?

If the problem is primarily physical, the solution may involve greater equipment capacity, faster scanning, automation, or changes to how specimens are batched and prioritized.

This is where BioView can help laboratories address capacity and workflow challenges at the scanning level. By evaluating the laboratory’s existing workflow and requirements, BioView can help identify opportunities to improve slide throughput and reduce manual intervention rather than treating scanner performance as an isolated specification.

Software Check: Is Expertise Being Lost to Interface Friction?

Not every bottleneck is mechanical. Highly trained specialists can lose significant amounts of time navigating software, locating relevant information, or performing repetitive steps during case review.

A workflow may be technically digital but still inefficient if users have to move between multiple screens, manually search for relevant findings, or repeatedly adjust images and settings. These small interruptions can accumulate across hundreds or thousands of cases.

Labs should evaluate:

How many steps are required to complete common review tasks?

Can reviewers quickly locate the information they need?

Are important findings clearly presented?

Does the software support efficient review of complex or high-volume cases?

Which tasks require specialist judgment, and which are primarily administrative or repetitive?

The goal is not simply to adopt more sophisticated software. It is to ensure that technology reduces cognitive friction rather than adding another layer of complexity.

BioView can address this part of the workflow by helping laboratories streamline how digital slides are accessed, reviewed, analyzed, and managed. Rather than focusing solely on image acquisition, a broader workflow approach can help ensure that the technology supports the people using it—allowing specialists to spend more time interpreting results and less time navigating processes.

IT Check: Where Does the Workflow Break at the Finish Line?

A laboratory can have fast scanners and efficient review software yet still experience delays if information does not move smoothly into downstream systems. Reporting and integration can become an unexpected bottleneck, particularly when results must be manually transferred into a laboratory information system (LIS).

Labs should examine:

How easily does information move between systems?

Are reports being exported automatically or manually?

Are staff repeatedly entering the same information?

Do integration issues create queues or delays?

Can the LIS and other laboratory systems support the desired workflow?

These problems may not be visible when evaluating individual pieces of equipment, but they can have a major effect on overall turnaround time.

BioView’s value can extend beyond the scanner itself by taking a workflow-oriented approach to implementation and integration. Understanding how digital pathology fits into the laboratory’s existing environment allows potential IT and interoperability challenges to be identified early and addressed as part of the overall solution.

Find the Friction Before Buying the Fix

The key principle is simple: identify the bottleneck before selecting the solution. A laboratory that assumes every delay requires faster hardware may invest heavily without addressing the underlying problem. Conversely, upgrading software will not solve a scanner-capacity issue or inadequate IT infrastructure.

This is why a workflow evaluation is an important first step. By mapping the process from specimen preparation through scanning, review, reporting, and final data transfer, laboratories can identify where time is actually being lost.

BioView can help at each point in that evaluation—whether the source of friction is physical capacity, user workflow, image review, or system integration. Instead of asking, “What technology do we need?”, laboratories can ask a more useful question: “Where is our workflow breaking down, and what combination of technology and process improvement will fix it?”

The result is a more targeted investment strategy: faster and more capable equipment where physical capacity is the constraint, smarter workflow tools where cognitive friction is the problem, and effective integration where IT infrastructure is slowing the process. By addressing the source of friction rather than simply treating its symptoms, BioView can help laboratories build a more efficient, scalable digital pathology workflow.