MLO’s 2025 survey of medical laboratory professionals

This year’s Medical Laboratory Observer (MLO) annual survey of laboratory professionals offers the most comprehensive snapshot yet, with a record-breaking 662 respondents—triple the number from last year—sharing their perspectives on job satisfaction, compensation, workforce dynamics, and professional development.

Survey findings reveal that while most medical laboratory professionals enjoy their work, taking pride in the vital role they play in patient care, it can come at the cost of mounting pressures and limited opportunities for advancement: Staff shortages, high turnover, burnout, dissatisfaction with salaries, undefined career ladders, and lack of support for continuing education.

The survey data underscores the urgency of investing in robust training and education, retention strategies, and long-term workforce development to safeguard the future of the profession.

For this article, MLO also reached out directly to members of the medical laboratory community to gather commentary on the state of the profession, which we present alongside the quantitative survey results data.

Additionally, we gathered qualitative insights by allowing survey respondents to provide comments to select questions within the online survey tool. These insights have been analyzed for key themes, which are included in this article, along with select comments from laboratory professionals presented anonymously.

A look at the respondents

Among the 662 medical laboratory professionals participating in this year’s survey (up from 220 in 2024), the majority were female (81%) and work in hospital laboratories (70%). There was representation from across a broad range of ages.

Looking at job titles, medical laboratory technicians (MLT) made up over one-third of survey respondents (33%), the highest representation of this role in the past three years (5% in 2024, 0.7% in 2023).

There were fewer respondents in laboratory director, manager, administrator and supervisor positions compared with previous years (28% in 2025, 41% in 2024, 73% in 2023). The next most represented title was medical laboratory scientist (MLS/MS) at 12% (14% in 2024, 3% in 2023).

Regarding experience, nearly half of those surveyed (48%) reported having 20+ years in the lab industry, and one-third (30%) 30+ years. Additionally, about one-third (32%) reported less than 10 years of experience, while the remaining 22% fell in the middle range (10-19 years of experience).

Current workplace

There was wide-ranging representation both in the size of labs and volume of testing among medical laboratory professionals who took part in the 2025 survey. While most respondents work in labs with 1-20 employees (40%), an additional 26% work in labs with 21-50 employees, and 34% in labs with 51-100+ employees.

Turning to annual test volumes performed by their labs, 32% were on the high end of between 1,000,001- 2M+, 13% between 500,001-1M, 22% between 100,001-500k, 10% between 50,001-100k, 7% between 25,001-50,000, and another 7% at less than 25,000. The remaining 8% responded “N/A.”

Nearly half of laboratory professionals surveyed (45%) have been with their current employer for five years or fewer, 25% between 6-14 years, 19% between 15-30 years, and 10% 30+ years.

When asked how many hours they work in a normal shift, more than half of respondents (52%) said they work 8 hours, which changed little since 2024 (56% of respondents). More respondents this year report working 12-hour shifts (11% up from 6% in 2024), 10-hour shifts (20% up from 16% in 2024), and 9-hour shifts (12% up from 9% in 2024).

Fewer of those surveyed report having fluctuating hours compared with last year (4% in 2025, down from 11% in 2024). As with last year, only 1% report working 6- or 7-hour shifts.

Education and certification

Looking at level of education, nearly half of those surveyed (46%) reported holding bachelor’s degrees, 33% associate’s degrees, 22% post-graduate degrees, and less than 1% said high school was their highest level of education.

When asked which certifications they held, nearly three-quarters of laboratory professionals (73%) cited they were certified by the American Society for Clinical Pathology, up from 63% in 2024. Those having earned Medical Laboratory Technician (MLT) certification rose as well, at 35%, up from 11% last year.

There was a decrease in survey respondents holding certification as Medical Laboratory Scientists (MLS/MS) and Clinical Laboratory Scientists, the percentage of the former being 17% (down from 30% in 2024) and the latter 11% (down from 14% in 2024).

As for the organizations from which they received professional certifications, the majority (78%) reported the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP). The next highest-ranking response was state certification at 10%, followed by American Medical Technologists (AMT) at 7%, and the National Credentialing Agency for Laboratory Personnel (NCA) at 6%.

A significant portion of those who selected “other” certification entities were international professionals commenting on their country’s official certification or licensure authority (e.g., Health and Care Professional Council United Kingdom, Medical Sciences Council of New Zealand, Philippine Regulations Commissione, Portuguese Ministry of Health).

The comments also uncovered a trend in specialty credentials in areas such as quality and safety (American Society for Quality), histocompatibility and immunogenetics (American College of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics), and point-of-care testing (Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine).

Salaries, bonuses, and benefits

There were fewer salaried medical laboratory professionals who took part in this year’s survey compared with last year (36% in 2025, down from 54% in 2024 and 72% in 2023) and more paid hourly (64% in 2025, up from 46% in 2024 and 28% in 2023).

Most survey respondents (68%) reported their salaries increased in 2024 (down from 73% last year), 29% stayed the same (up from 23% last year) and 3% reported a decrease (down from 4% last year). Only 32% received a bonus as part of their 2024 compensation (68% reported no 2024 bonus).

When asked about their expected 2025 annual base salary, over half of respondents (58%) reported salaries between $45,000 and $95,000. On the high end of the compensation curve, 26% reported earning more than $100,000/year, including 6% earning over $151,000 annually. In the lower income bracket, 7% reported earning less than $40,000/year. Most (44%) expect a 2-4% pay increase this year.

Kristina Good, a Medical Laboratory Technician (ASCP) in Wisconsin, shared her thoughts on compensation, stating: “Like most lab professionals, I did not decide to work in lab for the pay. That being said, the rate of pay for lab professionals is often not proportional to the work that we do. It can be frustrating that lab professional pay is not high enough, as I feel this can discourage people from entering the lab profession.”

Amanda J. Lewis, MLS (ASCP), a Clinical Laboratory Quality Assurance Supervisor based in Texas, commented: “Too often, organizations fail to factor in the growth of demands and job complexity, particularly in rural regions that pay sub-market wages, as struggling systems attempt to adapt to reduced budgets.”

Employer benefit offerings remained robust, with most laboratory professionals surveyed receiving health insurance (94%), dental insurance (90%), a 401k or pension plan (90%), vision insurance (88%), PTO (89%), and life insurance (82%).

Job satisfaction, security and advancement opportunities

The quantitative survey results showed somewhat lower job satisfaction compared with last year. Those who reported being “very satisfied” dropped to 38% in 2025 from 44% in 2024, and those “somewhat satisfied” dropped to 41% from 44%. There was an associated increase in medical laboratory professionals who reported being “somewhat dissatisfied” at 17%, up from 9% last year. Those who are “very dissatisfied” changed little at 4% in 2025, up slightly from 3% in 2024.

“I love what I do,” said Good, who currently holds an associate of applied science degree as an MLT and is continuing her education through the University of Arkansas for Medical Science (UAMS) with hopes to attain a bachelor’s of science degree in MLS in December 2025.

“My salary is not where I would like it to be, and this is a demanding field to be in, but it is also extremely fulfilling,” Good added. “I am proud to be a lab professional!”

Looking at the qualitative comments by survey respondents, most laboratory professionals report feeling satisfied with their jobs, often due to a passion for the work, supportive teams, and a sense of purpose. Example of positive comments:

“I work in a cancer clinic. I am very satisfied with the work I do. I see the difference we as a clinic make for our patients.”
“I am valued and appreciated. I am also asked to help with lab projects, and I help train new techs and students.”
“My organization and immediate reports are highly vested in improvement and advancement of myself and others. I feel valued.”

However, many still express frustration over issues like pay, leadership and workload. Examples of neutral comments:

“I enjoy my job, but if management was better, it would be 10x better.”
“I love my job; I do not like how things are run at my job.”
“Mostly satisfied. Could have opportunities for advancement.”

A smaller but vocal group feel deeply dissatisfied, citing burnout, toxic environments, and lack of growth opportunities. Examples of negative comments:

“This is a very toxic environment… very horrible things said to me.”
“No more growth potential. Same pay offered today as 35 years ago.”
“I am very burnt out and desperate for a break.”

When asked for the primary reasons they stay in their current positions, location/commute and work/life balance topped the list, at 52% and 47% respectively. Benefits (39%), salary (38%), team/culture (38%) and job security (32%) also ranked well, while 16% of those surveyed cited lack of other opportunities as their reason for staying.

Job security

Regarding job security, over half of medical laboratory professionals (56%) feel “very secure,” 31% “somewhat secure,” 9% “somewhat insecure,” and 3% “very insecure.” An analysis of the quantitative comments found the top three drivers of job security are:

Staff shortages and hard-to-fill shifts
Specialized expertise or leadership roles
Personal performance and tenure

Specific comments provided:

“My job can't keep employees. So, I’m confident I can stay as long as I choose to stay.”
“I am a very valuable team member as I am only one of two people who are trained as a generalist in my lab.”
“The CEO knows my name and there's talk of my future after I earn my bachelor's degree.”

The top three drivers of job insecurity based on the comments are:

Hospital or organizational financial instability
Management and leadership issues
Broader economic or political uncertainty

Specific comments provided:

“Secure in my role, but unsure about the hospital’s budget.”
“Always feeling judged, like others are looking for your mistakes.”
“With federal funding changes, it's not looking good.”

Career advancement

MLO asked medical laboratory professionals if they feel they have adequate opportunities for career advancement at their current jobs. The responses were nearly split between those who answered “yes” at 41% and “no” at 43%. An additional 17% report they were unsure about career advancement opportunities with their employers.

Commenting on career ladders and the need for them to match the pace of medical lab advancement, Lewis stated:

“Tomorrow’s med-techs will be held responsible for activities far from the bench, such as quality assurance review, basic IT interfacing, participation with departmental improvement initiatives on a multidisciplinary scale and data analytics, just as a starting point. Most labs though have yet to establish formal career progression ladders following the basic bachelor’s degree and ASCP credentialing.”

“While tuition reimbursement toward eligibility in ASCP is standard, few formalized developmental tracks exist for leadership, compliance, information technology or project management positions,” she added. “Micro-credentials, well-structured mentorship, and multi-step promotion would grant recognition and retention.”

Looking at the qualitative comments provided, the most common themes among those who feel they have adequate opportunities for career advancement in their current jobs included internal promotion practices, structured advancement ladders, and educational support.

Specific comments provided:

“There are higher level positions available, and they prefer to hire from within...”
“There are programs for advancement.”
“They provide tuition assistance for MLS...”

The most common themes among laboratory professionals who feel their current employers don’t offer adequate opportunities included small organizations with few lab positions, limited advancement opportunities, lack of a career ladder, and education barriers.

Specific comments provided:

“There are really only two positions at my job; lab manager and general lab technician.”
“Short of taking over as a director or leaving entirely, I am as high as I can climb.”
“No opportunities for tuition reimbursement if I wish to advance.”

Education and training programs

When asked how satisfied they were with their lab’s education and training programs, 41% of survey respondents reported being “somewhat satisfied” (down from 48% in 2024), 30% “very satisfied” (up from 25% in 2024), 20% “somewhat dissatisfied” (up from 17% in 2024), and 9% “very dissatisfied” (down slightly from 10% in 2024).

Those who contributed positive comments on their satisfaction levels cited benefits including tuition assistance, CEU platforms, clinical internship programs, and structured onboarding. Those who posted negative comments cited factors such as lack of formal structure, rushed training, financial burden on employees, lack of leadership support, lack of CE funding, and burnout due to having to “train while working.”

Workforce status, challenges, and opportunities

Nearly half of laboratory professionals surveyed (45%) reported it being “somewhat difficult” to hire qualified staff in the past 12 months, while 30% reported it being “very difficult.” Additionally, 13% indicated no difficulty, while 12% selected “N/A” as their response.

Over half (57%) reported their labs have experienced “moderate” staff turnover in the past year, 16% “high” turnover, and 22% “no turnover.” An additional 5% were unsure.

“Younger Gen Y and Gen Z professionals are especially transient,” Lewis noted. “They quickly switch jobs if competing labs offer compensation increases, flexible scheduling or ‘non-toxic’ environments. Time-tested recruiting tactics such as job board ads and hiring incentives are becoming increasingly costly as turnover rates each year approach 20% in regions.”

When asked what impact the current shortage of medical personnel has on their lab’s operational efficiency, 41% reported a “moderate impact,” 34% “low impact,” 16% “large impact, and 9% “no impact.” Compared with last year’s survey results, there was no change in those reporting any impact (low, moderate, high), at 91%.

Nathan H. Johnson, Ph.D., MASCP, MLS(ASCP)DLM, SC, SLS, chair, Department of Laboratory Sciences, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Health Professions in Little Rock, Ark., offered his thoughts on staffing shortages and their impacts, stating:

“There has not been an accepted laboratory manning standard in about 30 years. This makes the job of the laboratory director or manager difficult when documenting and communicating the need for new employees. The variation in automation also makes comparisons between labs difficult, but at the present time, that is probably the best option.”

“Staffing has consistently been a variable since I started working in lab in 2017,” said Good. “I cannot think of a single time in those eight years that our lab was fully staffed. It is a constant revolving door of working short, training traveling/temp staff, and training new staff. Just as we get close to full staffing, someone leaves or retires, and the cycle continues.”

Over three-quarters of laboratory professionals (77%) reported the current shortage of medical personnel did not cause their labs to outsource more tests during 2024, while 15% did engage in more outsourcing last year. An additional 8% of survey responded selected “other” with several providing comments on this selection.

Some laboratory professionals reported how they had experienced limited outsourcing due to staffing or sent tests to sister/reference facilities. Specific comments provided:

“Occasionally need to refer tests due to staffing shortage”
“Micro testing sent out to reference lab temporarily…”
“Tests are consolidated or referred out as needed”

Others noted that outsourcing didn’t increase or that the lab took alternative steps, like hiring temps or foreign workers. Specific comments provided:

“No outsource. They did bring in techs from the Philippines”
“Not testing, but we are recruiting internationally for staff.”
“Answer is NO… we are the reference lab.”

While automation to replace manual processes can help ease workforce burden, fewer reported their labs automating or further automating new procedures in 2024 compared with 2023 (39% down from 48%).

“Some burdens have been alleviated with automation, especially at high-turnaround pre-analytical zones of a lab,” Lewis commented. “Successful implementation, however, depends on the upskilling of staff so they can effectively employ and troubleshoot these systems.”

“The staff's education on how to use and troubleshoot these technologies will be crucial in the years ahead,” she continued. “Adopting these technologies will unlock a sustainable future for clinical laboratories and enable them to overcome existing obstacles.”