What to Look Out for and Avoid When Shopping for a New LIS System

Not all laboratory information systems offer the same capabilities, performance, or long-term value. Clinical laboratories and pathology groups must carefully assess LIS software vendors and laboratory workflow management solutions to identify the technology that best aligns with their operational needs and strategic goals.

This article helps accelerate the laboratory information system software evaluation process by highlighting common pitfalls, potential risks, and costly mistakes laboratories should avoid.

Discover More: Is Your Laboratory Information System and LIS Lab Vendor Holding Your Laboratory Hostage?

Laboratory Information System Warning Signs 

When used metaphorically, a "red flag warning" emphasizes the importance of vigilance and the need to proactively address or avoid potential issues before they escalate into more significant problems.

Apply the 'red flag warning' metaphor to medical labs that depend on laboratory information system software for centralized data and critical diagnostic test results to support effective decision-making and patient care.

Clinical labs and pathology groups cannot afford to make mistakes when selecting an LIS system. The stakes are way too high. Hence, labs form LIS selection committees, prepare RFIs, and carry out evaluations, diagnostic lab software demonstrations, reference checks, and site visits before committing to a new lab information system platform.

Editor's Note: The RFI efficiently enables labs to share their specific needs and requirements while comparing laboratory information systems. For a visual example of a filled-out RFI template, click HERE.

LigoLab supports such thorough evaluation and recommends that labs watch for the red flags listed below when shopping for a new LIS system.

Discover More: The Best Laboratory Information System Companies and the Advantages They Offer to Their Laboratory Clients

Where to Start Your Lab Information System Evaluation

When evaluating a laboratory information system, greater functionality and flexibility generally provide stronger long-term value. However, certain core capabilities are so critical that without them, a system can struggle. 

Let's start with sample tracking. 

Sample Tracking Matters: Red Flags That Signal LIS System Failures

LIS systems play a mission-critical role in managing and tracking samples from entry to reporting of results. If an LIS lab platform fails to track samples accurately, the business risks specimen loss, reporting delays, costly errors, and operational breakdowns.

Sample Tracking Red Flag Warnings

• Frequent Misplaced or Lost Samples: Regular occurrences of lost or misplaced samples suggest the lab information system isn't tracking samples accurately or consistently.
• Duplicate or Missing Sample IDs: The LIS system either fails to assign unique identifiers to each sample or generates duplicate IDs, leading to confusion and errors throughout the tracking process.
• Inability to Trace Sample History: Difficulty viewing a sample's lifecycle, including when and where it was processed, indicates poor sample tracking capabilities.
• Data Gaps or Missing Information: Missing records for certain stages of a sample's handling, such as arrival time, who handled it, or what tests staff performed, highlight tracking failures.
• Delayed or Inaccurate Status Updates: If the LIS system does not provide accurate, real-time status updates, laboratories may struggle to maintain visibility into specimen locations and effectively monitor workflow progression. 
• Difficulty Locating Samples: The LIS software takes too long to search for and retrieve information on specific samples, suggesting inefficiencies in its search and tracking functions.
• Relying on Manual Tracking Methods: Lab staff resorting to manual logs, spreadsheets, or other non-system tools to track samples reflects serious inadequacies in the LIS system's tracking capabilities.
• Missing or Inconsistent Alerts: The lab information system fails to provide timely alerts when samples reach critical stages, such as approaching expiration or requiring urgent action, resulting in missed deadlines.
• Confusing User Interface: A clunky or poorly designed interface that hinders quick sample location or laboratory workflow management may signal more serious underlying tracking problems.
• Discrepancies in Sample Chain of Custody: If the LIS system can't accurately document the chain of custody for samples, it creates potential regulatory compliance issues.
• Insufficient Audit Trail: An audit trail that fails to track historical data or trace discrepancies to their source exposes the lab to potential fraud and errors.

Next, let’s turn our attention to workflow automation. 

Why Process Automation is Essential in a Modern LIS System

Medical labs rely on standardized processes. The best LIS software automates these steps, ensuring staff complete each task fully and correctly.

Without automation, labs must manually track every step, increasing the risk of errors and delays in reporting. An LIS system lacking automation cannot fully support lab operations.

Discover More: Best Pathology Lab Reporting Software - Buyers Guide and Checklist

Workflow Support and Automation Red Flag Warnings

• Manual Workarounds: When lab staff routinely perform or track tasks manually that should be automated, it's a clear sign the LIS system lacks essential functionality.
• Reliance on Third-Party Tools: If the lab relies on tools such as Excel or paper-based logs to support laboratory workflow management, which create data silos, it's another indication of inadequate, outdated LIS software.
• Inconsistent Task Sequencing: Tasks are not consistently completed in the correct order, leading to missed or skipped steps in the lab's workflow.
• Lack of Automated Notifications: An LIS system that can't send automated alerts or reminders for pending or missed tasks creates workflow delays and inefficiencies.
• Frequent User Intervention: Repeated manual intervention to complete steps or correct errors that the LIS medical application should manage signals weak workflow support capabilities.
• Inefficient Approval Process: Delays in task creation, tracking, or approvals, as well as excessive back-and-forth due to unclear workflow, indicate that the lab information system struggles to automate and track steps.
• Difficulty in Customizing Workflows: If the LIS system doesn't allow easy customization to fit the lab's unique needs, it's a sign of limited flexibility.
• High Error Rates in Repetitive Tasks: When simple, repetitive tasks exhibit high human error rates, it suggests that the LIS software can't automate effectively.
• Task Duplication or Omissions: Workflow automation should ensure no step is repeated or forgotten. Frequent duplication or omission of tasks suggests that the laboratory information system may not support workflows effectively.
• Time-Consuming Data Entry: If staff spend excessive time manually entering data at each step, it indicates that the lab information system lacks interoperability with third-party EHRs and the automation needed to streamline workflows, eliminate redundancy, and minimize errors.
• Inconsistent Reporting or Auditing: Reports or audit trails with gaps, inconsistencies, or unclear workflows are signs that automated processes within the LIS system are lacking.

Now, let’s focus on the importance of instrument integration.

The Critical Role of Instrument Interoperability in LIS Systems

Clinical laboratories require seamless instrument integration within their LIS systems to maintain efficient operations. Without integration, staff must manually enter instrument data, creating a time-consuming process that increases the risk of errors. Failing to automate information systems and data management can lead to workflow inefficiencies, reduced productivity, and compromised data accuracy. 

Instrument Integration Red Flag Warnings

• Frequent Manual Data Entry: If lab staff frequently enter test results or sample data manually into the LIS system, this indicates integration issues.
• Delayed Data Transfer: Instrument results not transferred to the LIS system in real time lead to delays in reporting and processing.
• Frequent Data Mismatches: Recurring discrepancies between instrument-captured data and data reflected in the lab's LIS medical solution suggest the system struggles to interpret or synchronize instrument data.
• Limited Compatibility with Instruments: If the LIS software supports only a limited number of instruments or requires custom-built interfaces to connect new devices, it creates obstacles to integrating different or newer equipment, which limits lab flexibility. 
• Instrument Data Not Automatically Synced: If lab staff must manually retrieve or refresh test results from instruments, it's a strong indication that the LIS system does not fully integrate with the lab's equipment.
• Struggles with Multi-Instrument Management: When the medical LIS struggles to handle data from multiple instruments simultaneously, it can lead to performance issues, data mismatches, and confusion about which results came from which device.
• Manual Tracking of Calibration and Maintenance: A properly integrated LIS software should automatically log and manage calibration and maintenance records. If this must be tracked manually or in a separate system, it signals poor instrument integration.
• Interruption in Workflow: If the failure of a single instrument creates widespread workflow disruption, the laboratory information system may lack effective downtime management capabilities, resulting in increased manual intervention and operational inefficiencies. 
• Difficulty Configuring Instrument Settings: In a well-integrated lab information system, instruments can be configured or calibrated directly via the LIS. If this isn't possible or overly complicated, it suggests weak instrument integration.
• Lack of Bidirectional Communication: Proper instrument integration enables the LIS system and instruments to communicate in both directions, sending orders to instruments and receiving results. If communication is one-way only, the LIS system's integration capabilities are limited.

Other Key LIS System Evaluation Criteria to Consider

Beyond sample tracking, workflow automation, and instrument integration, lab leadership should consider several additional red flag warnings when evaluating laboratory information systems.

Hidden Costs

Be wary of laboratory information system vendors that aren't transparent about the total cost of ownership, including implementation, training, support, upgrades, and customization. These unexpected costs can quickly escalate well beyond the initial quote.

Discover More: What You Need to Know Before Contracting with a Laboratory Information System (LIS) Company

Limited Scalability

If the laboratory information system can't scale to support the lab's growth plans, including handling increased sample volume, new test types, or multi-location support, it will soon become a hindrance rather than an asset.

Discover More: How to Turn Your Mid-Sized Medical Laboratory into a Thriving Large-Scale Operation

Poor Customer Support and Training

Insufficient diagnostic lab software support or limited training resources can lead to costly downtimes and decreased productivity. Check for reviews or testimonials about the LIS software vendor's customer service quality before committing to their product.

Discover More: Questions All Pathology Labs Should Ask When Evaluating LIS Software and Support

Lack of Compliance and Security Features

Ensure the LIS lab solution complies with industry standards, including CLIA, HIPAA, and HITECH, and has robust security measures in place to protect sensitive patient data from breaches.

Discover More: LigoLab’s Enhanced Cybersecurity Solutions Give Customers Added Protection and Peace of Mind

Inadequate Reporting and Analytics

Medical labs must have access to detailed, customizable reporting and analytics capabilities for operational insights and compliance. If the lab information system lacks robust reporting features, it could limit your lab's ability to make data-driven decisions.

Discover More: Understanding the Importance of Real-Time Analytics in the Modern Clinical Laboratory

Slow or Unclear Implementation Process

A drawn-out, rushed, or poorly defined implementation timeline can seriously disrupt lab operations. The LIS software vendor should provide a clear, manageable timeline for implementation, training, and go-live.

Discover More: Keys to Keeping Your LIS System Implementation on Track

Negative Feedback or Poor Vendor Reputation

Research the LIS software vendor's reputation by reading customer reviews, checking for past issues, or speaking directly with other labs using the same LIS system. Poor feedback from existing customers is a significant red flag.

Discover More: The Importance of Pathology Lab Software Testimonials from Satisfied Customers

Limited Updates or Technology Roadmap

A laboratory information system vendor that underinvests in research and development, provides infrequent software updates, or lacks a clearly defined product roadmap is not focused on supporting customers' long-term growth and success. In many cases, these shortcomings can also signal an aging technology foundation that may restrict your laboratory’s ability to scale, innovate, and adapt over time. 

Discover More: Market Differentiation and Unmatched Customer Service - Two Major Reasons Why You Should Consider LigoLab for Your LIS System Upgrade

Lack of Data Migration Support

Migrating data from your old lab information system can be complex. Ensure the lab vendor provides comprehensive data migration support, including testing, validation, and troubleshooting.

Discover More: What To Do When Your Laboratory Information System Is Sunsetting

Inflexible Contract Terms

Be cautious of lab vendors with inflexible contracts, high upfront costs, long lock-in periods, high exit fees, or restrictive clauses that limit your options if the LIS system doesn't meet expectations.

Discover More: LigoLab Informatics Platform - Uniquely Designed with Tiered Pricing to Deliver Maximum Value

Putting It All Together: Choosing the Best LIS System 

There's a lot to consider and be aware of when shopping for the best LIS system for your clinical or pathology lab. Before selecting a medical LIS platform, evaluate all potential red flag warnings that could affect system performance and reliability.

Key factors include sample tracking, workflow automation, and instrument integration. A robust LIS lab solution should accurately track samples throughout their lifecycle, support workflow automation, and be highly interoperable with lab instrumentation.

Beyond these core features, labs should also consider the LIS system's scalability, pricing transparency, and vendor reputation. Hidden costs, limited growth potential, and poor customer support are additional red flags that could escalate into long-term problems.

Additionally, the lab information system should comply with industry security and regulatory requirements, offer flexible contract terms, and provide ongoing updates and technology improvements. A thorough evaluation of all these aspects, including the vendor's reputation and customer feedback, is essential to ensure the LIS software can meet your lab's current and future needs.

Ready to Leave Legacy LIS Systems Behind?

Supercharge your business with LigoLab's all-in-one medical LIS & lab billing platform, built for automation, accuracy, and growth.

Take Action: Book a Free Product Demo Today!

Frequently Asked Questions About LIS System Red Flag Warnings and Vendor Evaluation

What is the most important factor to evaluate when choosing a new LIS system?

There isn't a single factor; successful laboratory information system selection depends on evaluating several interconnected capabilities together. Sample tracking accuracy, workflow automation, and instrument integration form the operational core, and scalability, vendor transparency, compliance features, and contract flexibility all play critical roles. Labs that evaluate all of these areas systematically are far better positioned to avoid costly mistakes.

How can I determine whether an LIS vendor is transparent about costs? 

A trustworthy LIS system vendor will provide a clear breakdown of the total cost of ownership upfront, including implementation fees, training, ongoing support, future upgrades, and any customization charges. If a vendor is vague about pricing or only discusses the base license fee, that's a red flag. Requesting a detailed, itemized proposal and comparing it with those from multiple lab vendors is the best way to surface hidden costs before signing a contract.

What are the biggest red flags in LIS sample tracking?

The most critical warning signs include frequent specimen loss or misplacement, duplicate sample identifiers, delayed or inaccurate status reporting, and weak audit trail capabilities. Additionally, if laboratory staff rely on manual logs, spreadsheets, or external tracking tools to monitor specimens, it is a strong indication that the LIS is not effectively fulfilling one of its most fundamental responsibilities. 

Why does workflow automation matter so much in a lab information system?

Without workflow automation, labs become dependent on manual processes at every step, which increases the risk of human error, delays, and compliance gaps. Automation ensures that staff complete tasks in the correct sequence, that the LIS system sends alerts at the right time, and that repetitive processes run consistently without constant staff intervention. LIS systems that lack this capability create operational inefficiencies that compound over time.

What does bidirectional instrument communication mean, and why does it matter?

Bidirectional communication means the LIS system can both send test orders to instruments and automatically receive results. A system that only receives results (one-directional) forces staff to enter orders manually, slowing workflows and introducing opportunities for error. Full bidirectional integration is a hallmark of a modern, well-integrated LIS software platform.

How should a lab evaluate an LIS vendor's reputation before making a purchase?

Start by requesting references from current customers, ideally labs of similar size and specialty. Ask about their implementation experience, the quality of ongoing support, and whether the LIS system has evolved since they went live. Supplement those conversations with independent reviews and, where possible, site visits. A vendor confident in their product will actively facilitate this process rather than discourage it.

What should labs look for in an LIS vendor's technology roadmap?

Look for evidence of consistent investment in R&D, a history of regular software updates, and a clearly communicated plan for future development. Ask LIS vendors directly about upcoming features and how customer feedback influences their product priorities. A vendor that lacks a clearly defined product roadmap or continues to rely on outdated technology may struggle to keep up with the changing needs and increasing complexity of modern laboratory medicine.