I read a handover sheet from the bottom up. First I look for unresolved items and the person responsible for each one. Then I look at what was actually checked. Only after that do I look for the word “accepted.”
“Installed and working” can mean very different things to a buyer, a distributor and a laboratory. A unit may power on while an accessory is missing, an interface has not been tested, or the operators have not practiced the routine workflow. The acceptance process should make those gaps visible before a signature turns into an argument about who was supposed to handle them.
For a distributor, this is not just a technical form. It is part of the project scope: what the local team will install, inspect, demonstrate, document and hand over—and what remains for the laboratory to verify under its own procedures.
1. Separate delivery acceptance, commissioning and laboratory verification
People often use acceptance, commissioning and verification as if they were one event. I keep them separate.
- Delivery acceptance checks that the ordered equipment and accessories arrived in the expected condition.
- Commissioning checks that the equipment has been installed and set up so it can operate as intended.
- Laboratory verification is the laboratory’s own assessment that the system, in its local workflow, is suitable for its intended use and meets its documented requirements.
The UK MHRA’s guidance for in-vitro diagnostic devices separates acceptance testing, commissioning and user verification, and discusses compatibility, instructions and training as separate checks. It is UK guidance for IVDs, not a universal rule for every histology instrument or market, but the distinction is useful when writing a project handover plan (MHRA guidance).
A signed delivery or commissioning form should not be presented as proof that the laboratory has completed its own verification, established its procedures, or met an accreditation requirement. Those decisions belong to the laboratory under its local quality system and applicable rules.
2. Agree on pass criteria before the equipment ships
The least useful time to invent an acceptance criterion is when the equipment is already on the bench.
Before shipment, the distributor should compare the purchase order, tender response and product documentation. For each requirement, agree on what evidence will demonstrate it. “High throughput” is not a test. “The supplier will demonstrate the agreed protocol sequence using the specified rack format, with the steps and test conditions recorded” is closer to one.
I would put these items in the project checklist:
- Model, configuration and included accessories
- Site and utility requirements that the local team must confirm
- Functions to be demonstrated during commissioning
- Any connected equipment or software interfaces in scope
- Consumables and customer-supplied materials needed for the checks
- Training topics and the local personnel who must attend
- Records to retain, including test results, serial numbers and unresolved items
- The person responsible for each task and the date for closing open items
The World Health Organization’s laboratory quality-management handbook recommends defining expected performance specifications so they can be checked after installation. The exact checks still need to come from the contract, the current instructions for use and the laboratory’s own requirements—not a generic checklist copied between models (WHO Laboratory Quality Management System handbook).
3. Check the delivered unit against the order
Start with identity and condition, not the demonstration screen.
The local distributor should check that the model, configuration and serial number match the order; inspect the packaging and equipment for visible transport damage; and reconcile accessories and documents against the packing list. If anything is missing or damaged, record it before setup, with photographs where appropriate, and assign a clear follow-up owner.
This prevents a missing item being discovered only after setup or once the customer has scheduled the instrument for use. The record can also be compared with the quote and tender response.
4. Record the installation checks the distributor performs
For overseas projects, the distributor should plan the local service model before quoting. It is responsible for arranging installation, commissioning checks, operator training, routine maintenance and first-line repairs, and for budgeting the personnel, travel and service costs needed to deliver them.
During installation, the distributor should follow the current model-specific instructions and agreed project scope. Record whether site conditions were confirmed, the unit was positioned and connected as specified, required accessories were fitted, and documented start-up checks completed without an unresolved alarm.
Do not turn a general site checklist into a product promise. Water, drainage, electrical supply, ventilation, clearance and room conditions vary by instrument and configuration. Confirm them against the relevant manual and the laboratory’s facility requirements. The project’s existing guide, Laboratory Infrastructure Requirements: What I Check Before Equipment Installation, can serve as a companion read for the earlier site-readiness stage.
Record what was observed, not simply “installation completed.” If an item could not be checked, note why and who will close it. The distributor retains the commissioning record and provides the agreed handover copy to the customer.
5. Test the complete workflow, not just the power button
A machine that starts successfully has passed one check—not necessarily the checks that matter to the project.
For a single instrument, follow its documented functional checks and the measurable requirements agreed before delivery. Record the demonstration conditions. For a connected line, test the link between modules as well as each module on its own. The handoff point is part of the workflow.
For example, if a staining system transfers racks to a film coverslipper, the distributor should verify that the specified connected configuration performs the planned transfer and that the receiving stage is ready for the rack. The test should use the rack type, program and operating conditions agreed for the project. A separate power-on demonstration of each unit would not show that the connection works as a line.
The acceptance record should avoid claims that go beyond the check. If a nominal throughput is listed, note the protocol, rack loading and operating conditions used. A maximum figure on a product page is not automatically the expected output for every customer workflow.
Two procurement references reinforce the value of written criteria and defined responsibilities: a Royal Society of Chemistry guide to analytical-instrument purchasing (Potts, Analytical Methods, 2018) and a light-microscopy facility review that treats installation, quality checks and training as equipment-lifecycle stages. The latter is a management reference, not histology-specific test criteria (Anderson, Journal of Microscopy, 2024).
6. Make the training handover usable
Training is not complete because a demonstration took place. Record who attended, which users still need instruction, and whether operators practiced the routine workflow, cleaning, consumable changes, alarm recognition and the local service-request process. Include the current model-specific operating documents in the handover file and list any follow-up training the distributor still needs to provide.
7. Close the handover with evidence and open items
Before the final sign-off, I want to see a short record that answers four questions:
- What was checked? Name the function or requirement, not just “machine tested.”
- Under what conditions? Include the configuration and protocol used where relevant.
- What was the result? Record pass, fail, not tested or pending, using the agreed criteria.
- Who owns the next step? Assign a person or organization and a target date for every open item.
The delivery file may include the serial-number record, accessory checklist, commissioning results, training attendance, documents handed over and unresolved items. Keep the language factual: “The rack-transfer test passed under the agreed configuration” is more useful than “the system is perfect.”
If a requirement remains untested, the record should say so. The parties can then decide whether sign-off is conditional, delayed or limited to the checks completed. That decision should follow the contract and local process; the blog checklist is not a substitute for either.
What this looks like for a connected staining line
The HT-BSHE-660 automated slide stainer and HT-FilmC-1000 coverslipper can be supplied as separate units or as a connected configuration with automatic rack transfer. For an acceptance plan, that means the distributor should state which configuration the customer ordered and include the rack-transfer handoff in the local checks when the connected line is in scope.
The published ratings are up to 660 slides per hour for staining and up to 1,000 slides per hour for coverslipping. They are module ratings, not a promise that every connected line will deliver 1,000 finished slides per hour. The relevant acceptance conditions should be agreed with the customer and tied to the intended program, rack schedule and operating conditions. The product page itself cautions against describing the workstation as a fixed 1,000-slide-per-hour system.
JunTeng Medical’s full product range carries ISO 9001, ISO 13485 and CE certification. Buyers can review the published company and product documents on the certificates page and check the documents relevant to the specific tender. Certification does not establish that a laboratory has completed its own verification or make the laboratory compliant with local requirements.
These distinctions give the distributor concrete facts to include in its own project scope and acceptance plan.
My final check before sign-off
I would not accept a handover sheet that only says “installed, tested and trained.” I would look for the ordered configuration, the checks performed, the conditions and results, the training record, and a named owner for every unresolved item. That record gives the buyer and distributor the same reference point after delivery.
References
- World Health Organization. Laboratory Quality Management System: Handbook. 2011. WHO publication record.
- Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Management of In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices. UK guidance. GOV.UK publication.
- Potts PJ. Evaluation of analytical instrumentation. Part XXVII: a guide to good practice in the purchase of analytical instrumentation. Analytical Methods. 2018;10:3303–3309. doi:10.1039/C8AY90075B.
- Anderson KI. Strategies for selecting and managing equipment in a light microscopy facility. Journal of Microscopy. 2024;294(3):268–275. doi:10.1111/jmi.13316.