Objective: Efficiency criteria and automation in pathology laboratories have been set in a limited number of studies usually originated from the United States. A questionnaire has been prepared to determine the situation and define the criteria for adaptation in our country.

Material and Method: The survey was sent to all pathology laboratories and, 302 responded. The survey questionned of pathology laboratories efficiencies, staff workloads, methods applied, devices used, and physical conditions. Work flow productivity was obtained by dividing the annual number of blocks to working hours multiplied by the number of technicians. The hospitals were categorized to 3 groups according to providing training or not and privacy, and to 4 groups according to the annual biopsy numbers. The data entered through the SPSS 16.0 statistical package program, analysis of distribution criteria, significance of the difference between means tests were used.

Results: The annual biopsy numbers were significantly higher in education units, but below the limit of productivity levels for all laboratories. The device hardware and automation correlated with annual biopsy numbers. However, the laboratories of limited capacity have redundant automation. Histochemical and immunohistochemical staining numbers were high. Liquid-based cytology techniques were used more significantly in private hospitals. Archiving times were not standard. A serious shortage of working space in service hospitals was noted. Work flow productivity in education units was at the border, and low in other units.

Conclusion: All pathology laboratories in our country should define and improve their productivities. Formalizing of archiving times is very important for future malpractice lawsuits.