END USER VIEWS | LABORATORY INFORMATICS GUIDE 2013


Michael O’Donnell, senior chemist/ICT manager at The State Laboratory, Ireland


W


e have been running a network in The State Laboratory since 1985, which is a very long time in IT terms.


In the beginning, we managed our samples using a proprietary commercial database that ran on Apple II computers, before moving everything onto MS-DOS machines. Once our network was upgraded, people within the lab took the initiative to do things with the dBase database management system and so we gradually moved everything onto that. Eventually, we realised that while all these systems may do the work for you, they are not very secure – in fact, you could open dBase with a spreadsheet and make changes. So, in the 1990s we looked at LIMS, but in those days they ran on mini computers and at £100k were horrendously expensive. We waited, therefore, for PC-based programs to be available before we began the procurement process. We considered three LIMS, but found that the LabWare offering was more suited to our


the fact that the technical side of IT is trivial in comparison to the


issues of change control when introducing new technology’


‘I am now well aware of


varied workload. Some laboratories have hundreds of thousands of the same type of sample running through and while we have approximately just over 13,000 samples per year, the variety is colossal. With this in mind, we needed a very flexible LIMS, rather than one that was good at churning through one type of sample. We have been live with this LIMS since 1 January 2000 – in other words, that’s when we turned on the audit trail – and have been developing it as needed ever since. Getting people used to


using the new LIMS wasn’t difficult, because we had


already put various computer-based systems in place to help. Having attended many scientific computing conferences over the years I am now well aware of the fact that the technical side of IT is trivial in comparison to the issues of change control when introducing new technology. One thing we found from speaking to people in other labs is that they find systems often create extra work for them and seem


Aldwin Vriesema, director, Research-Medical Nutrition at Danone Research


I


nformatics within a laboratory has become part of the normal workflow, with data often being


stored directly on lab equipment that is linked to computing systems. The explosion of data within the genomics field during the past 10-15 years means that informatics has gained prominence due to the need of ensuring sufficient management, storage and security of that data. In addition to quick and efficient processing of that data is the need to facilitate sharing among researchers – having results stored on someone’s laptop won’t do anyone any good at all! The data needs to be readily available when needed, but also restricted where necessary as not everyone will be entitled to access all information. These are all critical points within a laboratory environment and it comes down to the flexibility of the solution. We have been collaborating with IDBS on an ELN that has just been implemented


within part of our organisation. This system aids our data capture and while it has yet to be fully implemented, we have had a lot of positive feedback from our end users. In the past, we have attempted to introduce similar systems, but made the mistake of going for something that was unnecessarily complex. The end result was that no one would use it. But there has always been a need for such a system. This time we ensured the end users were involved in the selection process in order to have a system that suits everyone’s needs, rather than management’s view of those needs. This was vital in ensuring this was not purely a management tool. IDBS has also greatly improved the process and the relationship has gone beyond the sale of the package as we now have identifiable internal trainers. These developments are all the result of a


10-15 years means that informatics has gained prominence’


‘The explosion of data within the genomics field during the past


shift in the way we work. Discussions with our end users showed that a vast amount of their time was spent in the lab working on results. But it’s no longer a matter of working 9-5 in the office because, in principle, researchers can work from any location. There are certain limitations to this, but this approach means that we need to be equipped for change. Lab notebooks aren’t applicable anymore and we are already working


on having the ability to start equipment from outside the laboratory. Systems like the ELN provide accessibility and will accelerate this particular way of working in the future – it won’t do it all, but it will help. This approach will be more prevalent in the future, and informatics is going to be the first step.


www.scientific-computing.com/lig2013 | 27


to serve no purpose other than collecting information for the management. At the very least, a LIMS shouldn’t create more work, and ideally it should reduce the time spent on tasks like checking steps, and ensure that data is readily available. A major factor in our choice of LIMS was that the people from LabWare were the only ones who were willing to open up the programming window and ask us exactly what it was we wanted it to do. The main impact of deploying the LIMS


has been that it’s now much easier to track the work. Samples are logged properly and tests are triggered by the type of sample going through. The biggest payback, however, is that we are increasingly automatically transferring results from our analytical instruments’ data systems into the LIMS. The first time I did a live import for our analysts they just sat back and commented that was two days’ work – and that’s not including all the checking steps. All of that time and effort is removed once a system is installed, and that is invaluable.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40