When to interface / not interface?

Sonya - although that's certainly a reasonable criteria to use for all the reasons you state (fees, maintenance contracts, etc.) and I know many do,  I personally do not use volume to determine whether something should be interfaced, even if volume is low.  The CAP (or other regulatory agency) benefits of interfacing the test make it a no brainer for me.  Plus, often when maintaining two separate platforms for a test it is often a question of a manual/kit (not interfaced) test vs a device-based test (usually interfaced), which often means maintaining two annual learnings, maintaining fluency with the manual reporting system as opposed to simply running the test on the interfaced device - sometimes even different QC.  All that said, volume (for me) falls to the bottom of the hierarchy because the other wins of having a single platform are much more significant.

Our basic belief is that, if a test can be interfaced, it should be. One exception would be tests that can't be interfaced, like a lateral-flow pregnancy test. There are other exceptions, like the difficulty of interfacing, or lack of ports, etc. at the site. Although there are fees for interfaces, we feel our middleware and device management software enable us to manage the program and keep up with certifications, QC reporting, and other regulatory issues. It is well worth the cost, especially since we are not there when testing is done. At least with interfacing, we can see what is being done, repond to issues, lock out non-certified operators and QC failure, and ensure that all testing is charted and billed, if appropriate. 

100% agree with Kathleen David. Anything that can be interfaced, it should be. 

We would interface any instrument that can be interfaced through Telcor QML.  We have had too many issues with clerical errors with manual resulting.  Example: resulting a positive pregnancy when it was negative and then the wrong result appearing in the patients MyChart, leading to patient complaints.