Keep the result connected to the question.
Follow the investigation from request and specimen through reporting and clinical review.
Explore the story
Planned core Medrella workflows, to be built from scratch using Schedula as the foundation. Availability requires development and demonstrated acceptance.
What this workflow connects.
The scope below guides discovery and demonstration. The adopted version and local configuration determine availability.
- 01
Lab test and observation templates
- 02
Orders, sample collection and test activity
- 03
Result entry, review and diagnostic reports
- 04
Corrections, pending work and release policy
- 05
Separately validated analyser and external-lab interfaces
A report is the end of several connected steps
Laboratory work starts with a clinical request and continues through collection, receipt, processing, review and release. When those stages live in separate tools, staff spend time locating samples and explaining status rather than advancing the work.
Medrella plans to develop laboratory orders, sample collection, observations and diagnostic reports as connected parts of the new product. The objective is a traceable investigation journey linked to the patient and encounter. The operational detail matters: the same patient may have several requests, specimens may be collected at different times and a corrected report must remain distinguishable from its earlier version.
Preserve specimen identity and context
The laboratory needs to know which specimen belongs to which request and whether it is suitable for the intended work. Collection time, receipt and processing status represent different events.
Recollection, rejection and outsourced testing require explicit workflows rather than free-text workarounds that only one person understands. Barcode and instrument connections need site-specific assessment, including label formats, identifiers and failure handling. A successful interface must do more than receive a value; it must associate the value with the correct patient, request and unit. The source should remain visible when results are entered manually or imported from another system.
Make review and release deliberate
Result entry, technical verification and clinical authorisation may involve different roles depending on the laboratory's process.
The system should reflect those responsibilities and preserve the difference between a draft result and a released report. Reference intervals and reporting formats require configuration appropriate to the test and patient context. A result should not be interpreted as clinically normal simply because a generic display uses a reassuring colour. Critical-result communication needs an agreed recipient, acknowledgement and escalation route. Those rules belong to the laboratory and hospital governance process, and their operation must be demonstrated rather than inferred from the existence of a notification.
Connect the laboratory with care and finance
Clinicians need to find the report in the encounter that prompted it, while operations teams need to understand outstanding work. Billing should be tied to agreed service events and handle cancellation, repeat testing and outsourced services consistently.
Patient access should expose the approved report through an appropriate channel and timing policy. AI extraction of external reports is a separate planned capability and does not replace laboratory authorisation. Start implementation with a representative set of tests and specimen workflows. Expand interfaces and specialised reporting only after the identity, status and reconciliation model has been proven with the people using it.
Test what happens when the routine breaks
A laboratory walkthrough should include a rejected specimen, an amended result, an instrument interruption and a report received after the original visit. Ask the team to trace the investigation from clinical request to released report and show how the requester learns about important changes.
Define turnaround measures using specific start and end events; otherwise comparisons become misleading. Review role access, correction history and the procedure for resolving unmatched results. The proposed laboratory foundation defines a starting development scope. Instrument integration, advanced quality workflows and specialised laboratory disciplines need their own requirements and acceptance evidence before they are described as deployed Medrella capabilities.
Connected thinking.
What would more time
for care make possible?
Let's explore it together