Steps to Take to Ensure Your Laboratory Has Safe and Efficient E. coli Testing

ELISA testing methods can also increase lab output dramatically; in some cases, certain immunoassay diagnostic kit devices can even double the throughput of some PCR or culture-based testing services. Therefore, while time to result can be comparable between PCR testing and ELISA testing, the volume of results in one run may be vastly different between the two technologies, depending on the number of handling steps utilized in the different methods, the number of reactions able to be processed per automated instrument run, and the number of instruments that can be overseen by a single operator. Ultimately, this difference can impact operational key performance indicators and affect productivity margins by lowering the base cost per reaction.

In addition, confirmation procedures can start up to one full day earlier when compared with PCR protocols, which require a subculture step prior to confirmation, saving time in identifying contaminated product. With ELISA testing, labs have the flexibility to run any number of samples with ultimate efficiency, so smaller labs can batch test for maximum automation and output.

When deciding on a testing provider, it is also essential to evaluate the company’s customer service and technical support to ensure your lab tests will not be disrupted by a lack of technical response. Labs should look for service providers that provide hands-on support and training, remote trainings if need be, and access to appropriate entities to provide both assay- and machine-related inquiries.

Look for Cost-Saving Solutions

When evaluating cost savings in the E. coli O157 testing supply chain, every minute aspect counts. If a product is proven to be contaminated and is subsequently destroyed, the producer ultimately loses out on the supply’s full profit margin. However, even a false positive can create stalls in the supply chain, necessitating a product pull or quarantine.

In a best-case scenario following a positive test, the product is ultimately proven to be safe, but the time needed to confirm a potential positive contamination means the shelf life of that product is reduced. Stores may not have enough time to sell the product before its shelf life expires, resulting in a full profit loss for that supply. The best way to circumvent that outcome is to ensure your labs are using testing methods less likely to create false positive results.

Since PCR testing can detect non-viable target cells, there’s an increased chance for false positive results, which could lead to delays in shipping product and loss of capital for the supply chain. ELISA tests are less likely to result in false positive notifications, which can save time and money.

ELISA tests also have minimal cold storage requirements and need less fridge space than molecular or culture-based methods for the same number of samples, which reduces the overall cost of running a lab.

Ultimately, the best way to reduce laboratory costs is to look for testing solutions that increase automation throughout the entire testing process. Look for solutions that require fewer manual steps, fewer liquid-transfer steps, less capping and uncapping of tubes—all small time savers that can add up to more output and bigger cost savings.

The Bottom Line

It’s up to each individual laboratory to find and implement the testing procedures that work best for its needs. Lab technicians should study current workflows with a critical eye for areas of potential improvement. Look at the testing process as a whole: Is your lab taking advantage of the automation advancements in the pathogen testing space? Is your throughput as high as it could be? Does your method provider offer you the technical and customer support you need?

Adoption of a particular method technology, including any of the immunoassay, molecular, or cultural technologies available to a facility processor, may be preferred based on operational and historical parameters. However, no one technology is universal for all the requirements of the E. coli O157 testing market. A willingness to be open-minded and allow methodological diversification could be advantageous to a processor, resulting in benefits ranging from cost savings to lower sample false positive incidence rates and leading to greater brand protection and service recognition.