LIS Implementation Articles: Migration to Go-Live

An LIS implementation is the project that takes a lab from a signed contract to a validated, production laboratory information system — discovery and workflow review, test catalog and rules configuration, instrument and HL7 interface build, migration off the legacy system, validation, parallel testing, and go-live cutover. The articles in this section work through those phases in operational detail. For the phase-by-phase schedule and what your lab owns at each step, start with the LIS implementation timeline.

Implementations rarely fail on features. They fail on the parts nobody scoped: a test catalog imported before anyone audited it, an ORU mapping the referring EMR reads differently than the lab intended, historical results that arrive without the units or reference ranges needed to trend against them, or a validation package assembled after go-live instead of before it. CLIA holds the laboratory — not the vendor — responsible for verifying that the system it releases results from performs as intended (42 CFR Part 493), which is why validation and parallel running belong in the plan from the first week rather than the last.

Where to start in this section

• Migrating off a legacy LIS — what data to bring forward and how to validate it: data classes, field mapping, historical results, parallel running, and cutover patterns labs actually use.
• The implementation timeline — the phases, exit gates, and decisions in a typical cloud LIS deployment, from discovery through post-go-live support handoff.
• Validation — how to assemble the validation package an inspector expects: interface test messages, configuration sign-off, and SOP alignment.
• Choosing the system first — the LIS buyer’s guide covers vendor scoring, RFP scope, and the red flags that make an implementation harder than it needs to be.

What usually drives the schedule

Configuration and interfaces dominate the critical path on most projects, and both depend on decisions only the lab can make:

• Test catalog and reference ranges — every orderable, its components, units, and age- and sex-specific ranges have to be reconciled against the live menu before they are configured in the catalog.
• HL7 order and result interfaces — each referring EMR connection needs its own ORM and ORU mapping, transport, and message-log validation before it can carry production traffic.
• Instrument connectivity — analyzers speak ASTM and HL7 dialects that differ by vendor and model, so each instrument interface is built and validated on its own.
• Release rules — delta checks, critical values, reference-range gating, and reflex logic all have to be written down and signed off before autoverification can release anything unattended.

Two comparison guides help frame the scope earlier: cloud LIS vs on-premise for the deployment decision, and LIS vs LIMS when the lab runs both clinical and research work. For a broader overview of the platform being implemented, see the cloud LIS software guide.

To scope an implementation against your own test catalog, instruments, and interfaces, request a demo.