Results are ready, the report is not
The analysts have finished. The results are authorised in the LIMS. Now someone in the reporting team exports them to Excel, copies them into the client's report template, checks the units, adds the client's specification limits, marks which tests are accredited and which were subcontracted, adds comments on sample condition, then saves a PDF and emails it.
Some large clients want their own layout. Some want a spreadsheet as well as a PDF. A few want the data uploaded to their own portal. Each variation is another manual step, and each manual step is a chance to paste a result into the wrong row.
Why reporting is still a copy and paste job
- The LIMS report templates are hard to change, so staff work around them in Word and Excel.
- Client-specific limits and layouts are held in separate files.
- Accreditation status, method references and subcontracting notes are added by hand.
- Units and decimal places are formatted manually.
- Every report is checked by eye because the process is manual.
Many labs outgrew their LIMS reporting years ago, and the workaround became the process.
The reporting team also carries knowledge nobody wrote down: that one client wants results to two decimal places, another wants less-than values shown a particular way, a third needs the sampling point name rather than your sample ID at the top. When that person is on holiday, reports slow down or go out wrong.
What hand-built reports cost
Turnaround suffers at the very end, after the science is done. Reporting staff spend their time formatting. Copy and paste errors lead to amended reports, which damage client confidence and add work. And every change to a method reference or accreditation scope means updating a pile of templates.
| Report element | Built by hand | Generated |
|---|---|---|
| Results | Exported and pasted | Pulled from authorised LIMS results |
| Client limits | Typed from a separate file | Applied from the client's stored specification |
| Accreditation marks | Added by hand | From your method and scope records |
| Subcontracted tests | Noted manually | Marked from the test's source |
| Formats | PDF, then a separate spreadsheet | PDF, spreadsheet and data file from one source |
How we build report generation
- We read authorised results from your LIMS through its API, database or export, only once they are released for reporting under your process.
- Report layouts are built as templates we maintain with you, including client-specific versions.
- Each client's specification limits, units and rounding rules are stored once and applied to their reports, with results outside limits marked as your procedures require.
- Method references, accreditation status and subcontracting notes come from your method records, so they update everywhere when a record changes.
- The draft report is shown to an authorised signatory, who reviews and releases it. Nothing is issued without that step.
- Released reports are sent by email, placed in a client portal, or uploaded to a client's system, with the issue recorded.
We do not decide what a result means or whether a sample passes. The generator presents results and limits as your procedures and your signatories specify.
What the reporting team gets
Reports are ready for review as soon as results are authorised. Signatories review content rather than formatting. Copy and paste errors disappear because nothing is pasted. When a method reference changes, it changes once.
Clients who want data rather than a PDF can receive a file in the format their systems accept, from the same source as the report.
Does this sound like your lab?
- Results are exported from the LIMS into Word or Excel templates.
- Client limits are typed into each report.
- Amended reports are often caused by copy and paste errors.
- Accreditation marks are added by hand.
- Changing a method reference means editing many templates.