Examining 7 years of implementing quality management systems in medical laboratories in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Achievement of ISO15189 accreditation demonstrates competency of a laboratory to conduct testing. Three programmes were developed to facilitate achievement of accreditation in low- and middle-income countries: Strengthening Laboratory Management Towards Accreditation (SLMTA), Stepwise Laboratory Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) and Laboratory Quality Stepwise Implementation (LQSI). OBJECTIVE: To determine the level of accreditation and associated barriers and facilitators among medical laboratories in the WHO-AFRO region by 2020. METHODS: A desk review of SLIPTA and SLMTA databases was conducted to identify ISO15189-accredited medical laboratories between January 2013 and December 2020. Data on access to the LQSI tool were extracted from the WHO database. Facility and country characteristics were collected for analysis as possible enablers of accreditation. The chi-square test was used to analyse differences with level of significance set at <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 668 laboratories achieved accreditation by 2020 representing a 75% increase from the number in 2013. Accredited laboratories were mainly in South Africa (n = 396; 55%) and Kenya (n = 106; 16%), two countries with national accreditation bodies. About 16.9% (n = 113) of the accredited laboratories were registered for the SLIPTA programme and 26.6% (n = 178) for SLMTA. Approximately 58,217 LQSI users were registered by December 2020. Countries with a higher UHC index for access to HIV care and treatment, higher WHO JEE scores for laboratory networks, a larger number of registered LQSI users, with national laboratory policy/strategic plans and PEPFAR-priority countries were more likely to have an accredited laboratory. Of the 475 laboratories engaged in the SLIPTA programme, 154 attained ≥4 SLIPTA stars (ready to apply for accreditation) and 113 achieved ISO 15189 accreditation, with 96 enrolled into the SLMTA programme. Lower-tier laboratories were less likely to achieve accreditation than higher-tier laboratories (7.7% vs. 30%) (p < 0.001). The probability of achieving ISO 15189 accreditation (19%) was highest during the first 24 months after enrolment into the SLIPTA programme. CONCLUSION: To sustainably anchor quality improvement initiatives at facility level, national approaches including access to a national accreditation authority, adoption of national quality standards and regulatory frameworks are required.

Implementation of a customised antimicrobial resistance laboratory scorecard in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Kenya.

Background: In low-resource settings, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is detected by traditional culture-based methods and ensuring the quality of such services is a challenge. The AMR Scorecard provides laboratories with a technical assessment tool for strengthening the quality of bacterial culture, identification, and antimicrobial testing procedures. Objective: To evaluate the performance of the AMR Scorecard in 11 pilot laboratory evaluations in three countries also assessed with the Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) checklist. Methods: Pilot laboratory evaluations were conducted in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Kenya between February 2019 and March 2019. Assessors with previous SLIPTA and microbiology experience were trained. Assessors performed the laboratory assessments using the SLIPTA and AMR Scorecard tools. Results: Weaknesses in technical procedures and the quality management systems were identified in all areas and all laboratories. Safety had the highest mean performance score (SLIPTA: 68%; AMR Scorecard: 73%) while management review had the lowest (SLIPTA: 32%; AMR Scorecard: 8%) across all laboratories. The AMR Scorecard scores were generally consistent with SLIPTA scores. The AMR Scorecard identified technical weaknesses in AMR testing, and SLIPTA identified weaknesses in the quality management systems in the laboratories. Conclusion: Since the AMR Scorecard identified important gaps in AMR testing not detected by SLIPTA, it is recommended that microbiology laboratories use SLIPTA and the AMR Scorecard in parallel when preparing for accreditation. Expanding the use of the AMR Scorecard is a priority to address the need for quality clinical microbiology laboratory services in support of optimal patient care and AMR surveillance.

Review of the Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) version 2:2015.

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) was launched, aimed at strengthening the quality and competence of African clinical, public health and reference laboratories. We reviewed the first version of the SLIPTA checklist in 2011. The continued development and publication of a new version of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 standard demands a renewed review. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the suitability of SLIPTA in guiding laboratories towards ISO 15189:2012 compliance and accreditation and provide recommendations for further SLIPTA improvement. METHODS: The study was conducted between September 2018 and April 2019. Coverage of ISO 15189:2012 by SLIPTA checklist version 2:2015 was determined and the point distribution of the scoring system over the different sections of the SLIPTA checklist was re-investigated. These findings were compared with the review of the first version of the SLIPTA checklist (based on ISO 15189:2007) and with findings published on SLIPTA implementation and roll-out. RESULTS: The coverage of ISO 15189 by the SLIPTA checklist has increased, even though ISO 15189:012 is more extensive than ISO 15189:2007. The point distribution is still skewed towards sections related to quality planning rather than quality control and improvement. Although to date 314 laboratories have been assessed, barriers for laboratories to participate in SLIPTA are high. Sustainability of SLIPTA results is insufficiently studied. CONCLUSION: SLIPTA checklist version 2:2015 has improved compared to earlier versions. We recommend increasing accessibility for laboratories to participate and increasing guidance for ISO-based quality management system implementation.

A new matrix for scoring the functionality of national laboratory networks in Africa: introducing the LABNET scorecard.

BACKGROUND: Functional national laboratory networks and systems are indispensable to the achievement of global health security targets according to the International Health Regulations. The lack of indicators to measure the functionality of national laboratory network has limited the efficiency of past and current interventions to enhance laboratory capacity in resource-limited-settings. SCORECARD FOR LABORATORY NETWORKS: We have developed a matrix for the assessment of national laboratory network functionality and progress thereof, with support from the African Society of Laboratory Medicine and the Association of Public Health Laboratories. The laboratory network (LABNET) scorecard was designed to: (1) Measure the status of nine overarching core capabilities of laboratory network required to achieve global health security targets, as recommended by the main normative standards; (2) Complement the World Health Organization joint external evaluation tool for the assessment of health system preparedness to International Health Regulations (2005) by providing detailed information on laboratory systems; and (3) Serve as a clear roadmap to guide the stepwise implementation of laboratory capability to prevent, detect and act upon infectious threats. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the LABNET scorecard under the coordination of the African Society of Laboratory Medicine and the Association of Public Health Laboratories could contribute to the design, monitoring and evaluation of upcoming Global Health Security Agenda-supported laboratory capacity building programmes in sub Saharan-Africa and other resource-limited settings, and inform the development of national laboratory policies and strategic plans. Endorsement by the World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa is foreseen.

Critical review of the Stepwise Laboratory Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA): suggestions for harmonization, implementation and improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical laboratories in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) need fundamental improvement because quality laboratory services are essential for the decision-making capacity of clinicians, health workers and public health authorities. To this end, a tiered accreditation scheme Stepwise Laboratory Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) was developed by WHO-AFRO, CDC and others for clinical laboratories in LMIC. One to five stars are accredited to laboratories based on the level of compliance with a checklist. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and applicability of this accreditation scheme compared with international quality standards. METHODS: We performed a critical review of this scheme to formulate recommendations for implementation, harmonization and improvement. Two analyses were performed: one assessing its coverage of the ISO 15189:2007 standard and one to identify and evaluate priorities of the accreditation checklist. RESULTS: Although the content of the checklist covers all aspects of total quality management, it strongly prioritizes resource management activities. We recommend identifying critical requirements for each tier of accreditation to assure a certain level of quality for each tier or instead using a pass/fail approach towards accreditation. In addition, the checklist should include more questions for assessing proper management, ethics and continuous improvement to meet ISO 15189. CONCLUSION: Launching accreditation schemes for laboratories in LMIC should be encouraged. After further optimization of SLIPTA, clinical laboratories may certainly benefit, leading to more correctly diagnosed patients and less waste of resources.

Review and comparison of quality standards, guidelines and regulations for laboratories.

BACKGROUND: The variety and number of laboratory quality standards, guidelines and regulations (hereafter: quality documents) makes it difficult to choose the most suitable one for establishing and maintaining a laboratory quality management system. OBJECTIVES: There is a need to compare the characteristics, suitability and applicability of quality documents in view of the increasing efforts to introduce quality management in laboratories, especially in clinical diagnostic laboratories in low income and middle income countries. This may provide valuable insights for policy makers developing national laboratory policies, and for laboratory managers and quality officers in choosing the most appropriate quality document for upgrading their laboratories. METHOD: We reviewed the history of quality document development and then selected a subset based on their current use. We analysed these documents following a framework for comparison of quality documents that was adapted from the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute guideline GP26 Quality management system model for clinical laboratory services. RESULTS: Differences were identified between national and international, and non-clinical and clinical quality documents. The most salient findings were the absence of provisions on occurrence management and customer service in almost all non-clinical quality documents, a low number of safety requirements aimed at protecting laboratory personnel in international quality documents and no requirements regarding ethical behaviour in almost all quality documents. CONCLUSION: Each laboratory needs to investigate whether national regulatory standards are present. These are preferred as they most closely suit the needs of laboratories in the country. A laboratory should always use both a standard and a guideline: a standard sums up the requirements to a quality management system, a guideline describes how quality management can be integrated in the laboratory processes.