News
Home / Full Lab Automation / Improving Routine Testing with Automated Urinalysis

Improving Routine Testing with Automated Urinalysis

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common bacterial infections in both outpatient and inpatient settings. They contribute significantly to the use and misuse of antibiotics, posing a threat to the present and future of global healthcare.

Traditional manual urine culture methods often struggle to meet the demands of high-volume laboratories, due to long turnaround times (TAT) and the inherent risk of human error.

In recent decades, automated systems have transformed how laboratories manage bacterial cultures, addressing many of the limitations in microbiology sample processing.

This applies also to urinalysis, where advanced automation has streamlined workflows, improved diagnostic accuracy, and dramatically reduced the time needed to deliver actionable results — developments that fall within modern lab automation solutions.

The Global Burden of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs)  

Gram-negative bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Proteus, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter, are the primary cause of UTIs. Emerging pathogens such as Staphylococcus and Serratia are also becoming increasingly relevant.

 

UTIs affect millions of people worldwide every year. In 2019, an estimated 405 million infections occurred globally, resulting in over 267,000 deaths. Women are disproportionately affected, with a 3.6 times higher risk compared to men in the same age group.

 

Although antibiotics can treat most uncomplicated UTIs, the rise of drug-resistant isolates has made accurate and rapid pathogen identification a top priority.

 

The economic burden is substantial: in Europe, the average cost per case is approximately €5,700, while in the United States it exceeds $13,000 per hospitalization. Altogether, these figures represent billions in healthcare expenditures each year, underscoring the urgent need for more efficient diagnostic tools.

Challenges in Urine Sample Processing

Urine and blood remain among the most frequently processed specimens in microbiology laboratories. The large volume of urine samples creates logistical and operational pressures, even for well-equipped labs.

Manual processing, including inoculation, incubation, colony reading, and reporting, absorbs around 30% of a technologist’s time. This slows down throughput and increases the potential for interpretation errors.

Manual culture-based methods also present several intrinsic limitations:

  • Long TAT: culture results often require 18–24 hours, plus additional time for AST.
  • Sensitivity constraints: diagnostic accuracy depends on human colony recognition, which is variable.
  • Contamination issues: distinguishing pathogens from contaminants is challenging, especially with low-level growth.
  • Standardization gaps: laboratories differ widely in how they apply reporting recommendations.

These inefficiencies delay diagnosis and compromise antimicrobial stewardship, contributing to inappropriate antibiotic treatment and reinforcing the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

How Automation Transforms UTI Processing

In recent years, laboratory automation has transformed microbiology workflows. Automated urinalysis systems offer major advantages in terms of speed, reliability, and integration within laboratory processes.

 

Designed for high-volume microbiology labs, automation supports all key phases of urine culture processing:

  • Standardized inoculation with accurate volumes
  • Controlled incubation with real-time temperature monitoring
  • Digital imaging for early microbial growth
  • AI-driven image analysis for rapid interpretation

 

Automation reduces the time required for bacterial culturing by removing manual handling, enabling faster microbial detection and earlier reporting of negative results. Studies show that automated systems can reduce turnaround time (TAT) by up to 24 hours, helping clinicians make therapeutic decisions sooner.

 

Automation also improves workflow standardization and laboratory productivity. AI-enhanced plate-reading software accelerates reporting by discarding negatives automatically and assigning the appropriate workup to positives.

 

Finally, automation strengthens traceability and reproducibility. Digital imaging provides objective growth documentation, reducing inter-operator variability, while LIS integration ensures secure data transfer and supports regulatory compliance.

Benefits of Automated Urinalysis for Patient Care

As UTI incidence increases and antimicrobial resistance becomes more complex, clinical laboratories must evolve to maintain high-quality diagnostic standards. Automated urinalysis offers a strong response by meeting the dual needs of high sample volume and accurate pathogen detection.

 

Through platforms such as the WASP automated microbiology system, labs can achieve greater efficiency, shorter TAT, and enhanced antimicrobial stewardship. Integrating automation into routine urine testing enables healthcare providers to deliver faster and more precise diagnoses, improving patient outcomes and generating reliable data for global infection control efforts.

 

Looking ahead, advances in AI, robotics, and digital interpretation will further refine automated urine culture, making it an essential part of modern clinical microbiology.

Bibliography 

  1. Timm MR, Russell SK, Hultgren SJ. Urinary tract infections: pathogenesis, host susceptibility and emerging therapeutics. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2025 Feb;23(2):72-86. 
  2. Bermudez T, Schmitz JE, Boswell M, Humphries R. 2025. Novel technologies for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections. J Clin Microbiol 63:e00306-24. 
  3. Culbreath K, Piwonka H, Korver J, Noorbakhsh M.2021.Benefits Derived from Full Laboratory Automation in Microbiology: a Tale of Four Laboratories. J Clin Microbiol 
  4. Cherkaoui A, Renzi G, Martischang R, et al. Impact of Total Laboratory Automation on Turnaround Times for Urine Cultures and Screening Specimens for MRSA, ESBL, and VRE Carriage: Retrospective Comparison With Manual Workflow. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Oct 28;10:552122. 

Join CoScience HUB

Create your CoScience HUB account now to access cutting-edge science and position yourself at the forefront of innovation. 

Sign Up Now

Share

LinkedInEmailWhatsApp