Search

Introduction: the productivity challenge: hiring versus automation DNA scientists are the greatest asset of any DNA laboratory. They provide the labour and expertise to perform testing and complete cases, accomplishing the fundamental work of the lab. At the same time, scientists also represent a large liability, as salaries, benefits, vacations and training add up to big recurring costs. As crime labs are faced with growing caseloads and backlogs, a common approach to address the increasing workload is to hire more staff. The hiring approach may create two new challenges. First, it takes up to two years to recruit, hire and train a scientist to process cases, meaning a considerable delay and huge investment in human resources before they can process a single sample on their own. Second, if the lab is addressing a backlog, what happens after it has been eliminated? While ultimately the lab's goal, it may then have too many staff on the payroll for the typical number of cases it receives. Turnover is a challenge for U.S. crime labs. Forensic DNA scientists who have completed their training are often recruited by other labs, meaning it is often difficult to keep a full level of staffing, contributing to perpetuating a processing backlog. Two case studies: automation creates “Virtual DNA Scientist” without hiring There is an alternative: bar code readers, integrated instrumentation and specialized DNA sample processing software have enabled lab staff to complete far more cases than was possible using the manual methods of even a few years ago. Investing in technology will enable current staff to substantially increase productivity while spending less money – without a single new hire. This article examines how two forensic DNA labs used technology to increase throughput by more than 40% without hiring. In essence, these labs have created Virtual DNA Scientists through their embrace of technology. The Virtual DNA Scientist works 24/7 without the need for salary or benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To improve and simplify electronic order entry in an existing electronic patient record, the authors developed an alternative system for entering orders, which is based on a command- interface using robust and simple natural-language techniques., Design: The authors conducted a randomized evaluation of the new entry pathway, measuring time to complete a standard set of orders, and users' satisfaction measured by questionnaire. A group of 16 physician volunteers from the staff of the Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System-Seattle Division participated in the evaluation., Results: Thirteen of the 16 physicians (81%) were able to enter medical orders more quickly using the natural-language-based entry system than the standard graphical user interface that uses menus and dialogs (mean time spared, 16.06 +/- 4.52 minutes; P=0.029). Compared with the graphical user interface, the command--based pathway was perceived as easier to learn (P<0.01), was considered easier to use and faster (P<0.01), and was rated better overall (P<0.05)., Conclusion: Physicians found the command- interface easier to learn and faster to use than the usual menu-driven system. The major advantage of the system is that it combines an intuitive graphical user interface with the power and speed of a natural-language analyzer.