Introduction: Currently, numerous automated and semi-automated systems are used in microbiological practice. Laboratory automation effectively overcomes some of the limitations of conventional microbiological methods, while optimizing workflow, compensating for the shortage of trained personnel, and reducing the risk of medical errors and associated costs. One of the major advantages of laboratory automation is the reduced turnaround time for obtaining final results, enabling faster clinical decision-making and the timely initiation of appropriate and effective antibiotic therapy.
Aim: The present study investigated the extent to which automated systems are used in microbiology laboratories in Bulgaria. We also assessed the attitudes and expectations of medical professionals working in microbiology laboratories toward laboratory automation.
Materials and Methods: Between July and September 2025, a cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymized questionnaire among 79 medical specialists working in microbiology laboratories in six Bulgarian towns.
Results: The majority of microbiology laboratories in Bulgaria owned and used automated systems in their routine work (82.3%, n = 65). The others (17.7%, n = 14) did not have any automated system. No statistically significant difference was observed in the use of automated systems between hospital-based and outpatient laboratories: 81.6% (n = 40) and 83.3% (n = 25), respectively.
Most respondents expressed a positive attitude toward automation. When allowed to select more than one answer, they identified the main benefits of automated systems as reducing analysis time (36.7%, n = 61), facilitating workflow (31.9%, n = 53), and improving results (27.7%, n = 46). Only 3.0% (n = 5) of the responses reflected a negative attitude, with concerns primarily related to the potential for increased workload among laboratory personnel.
Conclusion: The majority of microbiology laboratories included in the study use automated systems in their routine practice, and respondents generally have a positive attitude toward the implementation of new technologies.
Bailey AL, Ledeboer N, Burnham CD. Clinical microbiology is growing up: the total laboratory automation revolution. Clin Chem. 2019;65(5):634-43. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2017.274522.
Choi Q, Kim HJ, Kim JW, Kwon GC, Koo SH. Manual versus automated streaking system in clinical microbiology laboratory: performance evaluation of Previ Isola for blood culture and body fluid samples. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32(5):e22373. doi:10.1002/jcla.22373.
Croxatto A, Prod'hom G, Faverjon F, Rochais Y, Greub G. Laboratory automation in clinical bacteriology: what system to choose? Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(3):217-35. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2015.09.030.
Foglia E, Garagiola E, Ferrario L, Adorisio E, Gagliardi G, Lenoci FD. Total laboratory automation for microbiology activities: an HTA analysis in an Italian laboratory setting. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2026;18:597703. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S597703.
Mutters NT. Laboratory automation in clinical microbiology: a quiet revolution. Austin J Infect Dis. 2014;1(1):2.
Абакарова ЗТ. [Материал по микробиология] [Internet]. [cited 2026 August 22]. Available from: https://rmmk05.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/22-aprelya-mikrobiologiya-Abakarova-2-kurs-1-3-gr.pdf
Динев П, Ценев И, Кацаров К, Таков Д, Миховски М. COVID-19: за компетентността, стандартизацията и акредитацията. Машиностроене и електротехника. 2020;(7-8):146-53.
Ивойлов ОО, Кочетов АГ, Тирских КА. Современный подход к хронометражу рабочих мест микробиологической лаборатории. Клиническая микробиология и антимикробная химиотерапия. 2022;24(1):67-76. doi:10.36488/cmac.2022.1.67-76.
