LABORATORY MANAGEMENT


instrument, the slide is automatically moved to a dedicated safety container and the scanning run continues uninterrupted. The operational consequence for a laboratory manager is direct. Staff are not tethered to the scanner during operation, and the FTE hours that would otherwise be absorbed by monitoring and intervention return to value-added work. In the context of this article’s central argument, this is another category of manual workflow overhead that digital infrastructure eliminates rather than redistributes.


Conclusions The hidden cost of manual slide handling is not hidden because it is small. It is hidden because it is distributed across so many separate workflow steps that no single line item makes it visible: the slide file clerk; the courier contract; the assembly time; the MDT preparation; the archival retrieval request. Each of these is a real cost, staffed by real people and consuming real hours that the laboratory cannot afford to lose to logistics at a time when its diagnostic output per person needs to grow. The laboratory managers who will be best positioned in 2026 and beyond are those who have already recognised that workflow efficiency is not a nice- to-have. It is the operational foundation that determines whether a laboratory can sustain its diagnostic mission with the workforce it can realistically recruit. Making that foundation digital is not an incremental improvement. It is the structural change that makes the mission more viable.


Key takeaways for laboratory managers 1 Five minutes per case is the published manual workflow overhead for laboratory logistics in glass-slide operations. Across a 400-case-per-day laboratory, this is equivalent to 2.3 FTE positions running at full capacity performing work that a digital workflow eliminates.4


2 Archival slide requests fell 93–97% at a major cancer centre after digital implementation. The FTE time previously consumed by filing, retrieval, and delivery of glass slides does not disappear from the workload. It disappears from the workflow entirely.3


3 Workforce sustainability is the workforce argument. The laboratory workforce shortage is structural and deepening. Eliminating the 2.3 FTE of manual logistics overhead from a digital workflow is not just an efficiency gain. It is a redeployment of staff


In a glass-slide workflow, MDT preparation requires physical assembly and transport of comparison slides, coordination between pathology and clinical teams for case scheduling, and the sequential presentation of one case at a time.


capacity toward work that requires skilled human judgment in a labour market where skilled professionals are in short supply.


4 Scanner rescan rate is a direct operational cost driver. A high- volume scanner that requires frequent manual rescan intervention or continuous staff monitoring to catch problem slides creates a new category of staff overhead. Selecting an efficient platform with a low rescan rate minimises scan team staffing requirements and reduces workflow interruption.


5 The $267,000 a year figure is a benchmark, not a ceiling. The MSK projected savings were calculated conservatively from personnel restructuring, vendor cost reduction, and storage savings. They did not include TAT improvements, MDT efficiency gains, or the recruitment and retention value of a modern digital workflow.3


PPi


References 1


L’Imperio V, Dei Tos AP, Carbone M, et al. Pathology in motion: Automation from specimen to report. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2026;222:105263. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2026.105263


2 Walsh E, Orsi NM. The current troubled state of the global pathology workforce: a concise review. Diagn Pathol. 2024;19(1):163. doi:10.1186/s13000-024-01590-2


3 Hanna MG, Reuter VE, Samboy J, et al. Implementation of Digital Pathology Offers Clinical and Operational Increase in Efficiency and Cost Savings. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143(12):1545-1555.


26 WWW.PATHOLOGYINPRACTICE.COM September 2026


doi:10.5858/arpa.2018-0514-OA


4 Schwen LO, Kiehl TR, Carvalho R, Zerbe N, Homeyer A. Digitization of Pathology Labs: A Review of Lessons Learned. Lab Invest. 2023;103(11):100244. doi:10.1016/j.labinv.2023.100244


5


Jahn SW, Plass M, Moinfar F. Digital Pathology: Advantages, Limitations and Emerging Perspectives. J Clin Med. 2020;9(11):3697. doi:10.3390/jcm9113697


6 Ardon O, Klein E, Manzo A, et al. Digital pathology operations at a tertiary cancer center: Infrastructure requirements and operational cost. J Pathol Inform. 2023;14:100318. doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100318


7 Kuhlman B, Fukumoto T, Bedi R. Comparative Performance Evaluation of FDA-Cleared Whole Slide Imaging Scanners: A Scientific Review. Int J Pathol Clin Res. 2025;11:165. doi.org/10.23937/2469-5807/1510165


8 US Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) premarket notification K241717: Epredia E1000 Dx Digital Pathology Solution. (FDA CDRH, 2025) www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh_docs/reviews/K241717.pdf


Ryan Davis has been a member of the medical equipment industry for over 15 years, serving in a variety of roles. At Epredia, he specialises in digital pathology and AI and is a board member for both the Digital Pathology Association and The European Society of Digital and Integrative Pathology. He has a strong focus on making digital pathology and AI digestible for facilities to understand how it will impact their work.


www.epredia.com


AdobeStock / watchara


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  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56