ABSTRACT
Background: The Nigerian Institute of Medical Research houses two reference laboratories: the virology and tuberculosis laboratories. Both were enrolled in the Strengthening Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation (SLMTA) programme. Objective: To describe the impact of SLMTA and discuss factors affecting the results; with an emphasis on mentorship Methods: The SLMTA programme was implemented from April 2010 through November 2012. Participants attended three workshops and executed quality improvement projects; laboratory auditors evaluated performance using a standard checklist. The virology laboratory did not receive mentorship; however; the tuberculosis laboratory had an international mentor who visited the laboratory four times during the programme; spending two to four weeks embedded within the laboratory during each visit. Results: There was an overall improvement in the performance of both laboratories; with the virology laboratory increasing 13% (from 80% at baseline to 93% at exit audit) and the tuberculosis laboratory increasing 29% (from 66% to 95%). These scores were maintained nine months later at the surveillance audit. Conclusion: The SLMTA programme resulted in improved and sustained quality management performance for both laboratories. Mentoring was a possible factor in the substantial improvement made by the tuberculosis laboratory and should be considered in order to augment the training received from the SLMTA workshops
Subject(s)
Laboratories , Quality Improvement , Reference StandardsABSTRACT
Background: Laboratory mentorship has proven to be an effective tool in building capacity and assisting laboratories in establishing quality management systems. The Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Welfare implemented four mentorship models in 19 laboratories in conjunction with the Strengthening Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation (SLMTA) programme.Objectives: This study outlines how the different models were implemented; cost involved per model and results achieved.Methods: Eleven of the laboratories had been trained previously in SLMTA (Cohort I). They were assigned to one of three mentorship models based on programmatic considerations: Laboratory Manager Mentorship (Model 1; four laboratories); One Week per Month Mentorship (Model 2; four laboratories); and Cyclical Embedded Mentorship (Model 3; three laboratories). The remaining eight laboratories (Cohort II) were enrolled in Cyclical Embedded Mentorship incorporated with SLMTA training (Model 4). Progress was evaluated using a standardised audit checklist.Results: At SLMTA baseline; Model 1-3 laboratories had a median score of 30%. After SLMTA; at mentorship baseline; they had a median score of 54%. At the post-mentorship audit they reached a median score of 75%. Each of the three mentorship models for Cohort I had similar median improvements from pre- to post-mentorship (17 percentage points for Model 1; 23 for Model 2 and 25 for Model 3; p 0.10 for each comparison). The eight Model 4 laboratories had a median baseline score of 24%; after mentorship; their median score increased to 63%. Median improvements from pre-SLMTA to post-mentorship were similar for all four models.Conclusion: Several mentorship models can be considered by countries depending on the available resources for their accreditation implementation plan