Rising to the challenge: How Liverpool Clinical Laboratories transformed amidst the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped laboratory operations overnight. For Liverpool Clinical Laboratories (LCL), the largest pathology provider in Cheshire and Merseyside, this challenge became an opportunity to enhance clinical and workforce efficiency through lab automation.¹

With 650+ staff across four hospital labs, LCL delivers 24/7 diagnostics, processing over 25 million tests annually.¹ During the pandemic, LCL led the UK’s response with rapid COVID-19 testing, but the surge in demand exposed inefficiencies in manual workflows, increasing staffing pressures and slowing turnaround times.¹

Rather than just hiring more staff, LCL decided to embrace automation, allowing biomedical scientists to focus on high-value tasks while reducing errors, improving turnaround times, and enhancing job satisfaction.

We sat down with Virology Manager Jay Moorcroft to hear how LCL’s shift to automation transformed lab operations, offering key insights for labs facing similar challenges.

Q: What challenges did LCL face before automation, and what led you to consider changing your strategy?

Jay Moorcroft: The pandemic created unprecedented testing demands that lasted far longer than expected. While alternative methods helped early on, balancing ongoing COVID-19 testing with sexual health diagnostics became unsustainable. High-throughput analyzers were overwhelmed, and staffing shortages worsened as fixed-term workers returned to their careers and new opportunities. Recruitment, training, and workflow management became increasingly difficult, making it clear we needed a long-term, automated solution to improve efficiency and sustainability.

Jay Moorcroft: During the pandemic, we moved into a new facility but initially replicated our existing workflows instead of optimizing them. When an opportunity arose to rethink our approach, we asked ourselves: What would an ideal automated system look like?

Serology had already benefited from automation for years, but molecular diagnostics was lagging. The idea of implementing automation would allow us to refine processes, improve efficiency, and better allocate resources. Though automation required a shift in mindset, nearly two years in, we haven’t looked back—it has transformed both staff efficiency and patient care.

Jay Moorcroft: Relying on manual workflows for molecular testing was no longer viable. Our locally developed PCR assays had served us for 15 years, but regulatory changes and growing demand required a shift to commercial, automated solutions.

We hope that automation will allow us to streamline transplant testing, reduce reliance on highly skilled staff for routine tasks, and improve efficiency. It also will, hopefully, foster collaboration, allowing us to exchange insights with other labs and suppliers—something that was difficult with in-house PCR. Implementing automation required careful planning, especially with staffing shortages, but emerging technologies made the transition timely and necessary.

Q: How did staffing influence your decision to automate?

Jay Moorcroft: Even before the pandemic, we were expanding our support workforce, introducing associate practitioners to bridge the gap between lab assistants and biomedical scientists (BMSs). Virology has a small team of BMSs, so optimizing support roles for laboratory practitioners was essential.

As automation advanced, we re-evaluated how we staffed certain processes, questioning long-standing resource allocation and identifying smarter ways to manage workflows.

Jay Moorcroft: Automation allowed us to focus on upskilling our staff instead of making changes to our staff instead. We train our associate practitioners to operate automated platforms, load reagents, and manage processes more independently. We also expanded their role into semi-automated tasks, such as molecular extraction, reducing reliance on BMSs for routine work.

This shift improved workflow efficiency and provided valuable development opportunities. Staff now have a deeper understanding of molecular processes rather than viewing automation as a “black box.” Overall, automation has enhanced both operations and career progression, creating a more dynamic and engaged workforce.

Q: What led you to choose automation over simply increasing the number of support workers to handle the manual steps?

Jay Moorcroft: With the platforms we used before and during the early pandemic, although we had the necessary throughput, the process was still highly manual. Even though samples always need to be racked, the older systems required someone to be physically present to load the samples, monitor the machine, and remove them at the end.

With automation, by staffing the process with band three and band four laboratory practitioners (lab assistants and associate practitioners), the workflow improved significantly. While they may have previously felt a sense of direct control over the process—loading, capping, and handling each sample—the automation now handles those repetitive steps for them.

This shift allows staff to place the samples on the system and step away, freeing them up to contribute to other tasks within the department. Ultimately, automation not only streamlined efficiency but also expanded opportunities for staff to engage in a broader range of responsibilities.

Q: Would you say automation not only reduces the number of support workers needed but also improves workflows for those who remain?

Jay Moorcroft: One of automation’s biggest benefits is consistency—it eliminates human variability, ensuring every sample is processed with the same precision, whether today or months from now.

Initially, there were concerns about job security, but once staff saw automation in action, they realized it wasn’t about replacing roles—it was about enhancing efficiency and they came on board. Instead of being tied to repetitive manual work, they could focus on higher-value tasks, gain new skills, and support other departments.

Automation also transformed overnight processing. Previously, sexual health samples arriving late in the day sat idle until morning. Now, pre-labeled workflows allow staff to rack and load samples, with automation processing them overnight—reducing backlog and improving turnaround times.

By shifting routine tasks to automation, we’ve optimized efficiency, improved job satisfaction, and ensured continuous sample processing, freeing staff to take on more meaningful work while the system handles the rest.

Q: What criteria did you use to determine whether this solution would support your needs?

Jay Moorcroft:  Our approach was simple: if we had this equipment, what could we achieve? We knew it needed to handle our current workloads, but beyond that, it also opened doors for repatriating work. From a pathology network perspective, we saw an opportunity to offer centralized testing—for example, managing chlamydia and sexual health testing for other facilities, providing them with a cost-effective and high-quality service.

Future preparedness was another key factor. While we hope to avoid another pandemic-level crisis, having a system that allows us to scale rapidly ensures we’re ready if demand surges again.

Beyond immediate needs, automation future-proofs us. It needed to give us the flexibility to expand our molecular portfolio, integrating new diagnostics we hadn’t implemented before. Ultimately, it was about long-term adaptability, sustainability, and ensuring we’re always ahead of the curve.

Q: How did staff react to the process optimization plan? Beyond concerns about job security, how did you navigate the transition?

Jay Moorcroft: Like any change, there was some initial hesitation. The previous systems were highly manual, so shifting to automation required a mindset adjustment. While tasks like daily and weekly maintenance remained unchanged, trusting the system to handle processes took time.

Because the transition happened quickly, there wasn’t much time for overthinking—it was a case of adapt and move forward. For staff recruited during COVID-19 testing, this was their first experience with lab workflows, so they had nothing to unlearn, making automation feel seamless to them.

A key challenge was middleware integration, which introduced an additional layer of control. While automation streamlined workflows, staff retained manual override capabilities, ensuring flexibility when needed.

Despite early doubts, excitement grew as efficiency gains became clear. Staff took pride in being part of a groundbreaking transformation, especially when industry professionals visited to see their work in action.

Q: How long did it take for hesitation to shift into excitement? Did staff need hands-on experience before feeling confident, or was there skepticism up until installation?

Jay Moorcroft: The transition was easier because staff could physically see the system taking shape over several months. Watching an empty space gradually transform with new equipment helped them adjust to the change. Unlike a standalone instrument that arrives ready to go, this was a large-scale transformation, making it feel more tangible and less abrupt.

As the setup progressed, the space became more structured, and staff could visualize how everything would function. This hands-on exposure helped bridge the gap between uncertainty and acceptance.

Training was introduced early, as soon as opportunities arose, allowing staff to be actively involved from the beginning. By the time the system was fully connected, and training was in full swing, they had already seen it in action, making the transition natural and intuitive.

To learn more about the impact automation has had on LCL, check out part 2 of our conversation with Jay, here.