Laboratory Quality Audit in 25 Anti-Retroviral Therapy Facilities in North West of Nigeria

Abstract

Introduction: A laboratory's ability to consistently produce high-quality and reliable results hinges on adopting laboratory standards that guide daily practices to ensure steady quality improvement. Although assessment is an extremely rewarding exercise in health care quality improvement processes, it is always considered very time consuming and expensive in developing world settings. A quarterly internal audit was conducted in 25 FHI360 supported Antiretroviral Treatment laboratories in the North West of Nigeria which can surely provide reference for other countries. Methodology: A checklist adapted from the World Health Organization/African Regional Office laboratory accreditation checklist was used to quantitatively evaluate 7 quality essentials (QEs). A team composed of technical staff from FHI360, State Ministry of Health and facility laboratory heads, conducted the audits, developed and monitored intervention plans. Information obtained with the checklist was captured in excel, validated and imported into Grappa Prism software version 5.0 for analysis. Results: Most (92%) facilities were at secondary level with (8%) at tertiary level. The mean total score on all QEs across the facilities was 63.34 ± 9.77 in quarter (Q) 1, 68.8 ± 10.91 in Q2, 72.59 ± 8.02 in Q3 and 72.72 ± 9.16 in Q4 (p ≤ 0.0001). The most improved QE through Q1-Q4 was organization and personnel (32.2%), while signage/bench top reference had an 18.6% point decline. In ranking facilities based on differences of total scores between Q4 and Q1, Kachia General Hospital was the highest with 27 point increase. Considering the mean percentage score for all quarters per facility, 4 had ≥ 80%, 19 had between 60% -80% and 2 had ˂60%. The total non-conformities cited for QI-Q4 were 185, 100, 78 and 64 respectively with highest recorded in internal and external quality control and the least in facility and safety. Conclusion: We recorded some improvement in most QEs confirming the benefits of internal audits, reviews and follow-up. However, much more is needed in terms of technical assistance, capacity building, mentorship, and commitment at facility and state level to meet minimum acceptable laboratory quality stan-* Corresponding author. F. E. Jegede et al. 194 dards.

Evaluation of Laboratory Performance with Quality Indicators in Infectious Disease Hospital, Kano, Nigeria

“…As we experienced with some of the quality indicators, poor documentation of laboratory processes, incidence and occurrence is a big challenge as the staff consider documenting as unnecessary paperwork and extra burden as reported earlier in Nigeria [7]. Health-workers performance (defined as adherence to an accepted standard or guideline) is very often inadequate, and is a widespread problem in low-resource settings [19].…”

“…QMS are still uncommon in clinical laboratories in Nigeria [6] [7]. In January 2010, implementation of QMS toward WHO-AFRO laboratory accreditation [8] [9] commenced in Nigeria involving several laboratories including Infectious Disease Hospital (IDH), Kano [10], which is supported by FHI360.…”

Active tracking of rejected dried blood samples in a large program in Nigeria

“…Active patient tracking systems that use social workers to track patients have been applied in Kenya to reduce LTFU among HIV, PMTCT and tuberculosis patients from 21% to 15% [43] . In other studies, peer-based strategies that engage expert and or mentor-mothers in educating and motivating HIV positive mothers to access PMTCT services using their own experience, have been instrumental in improving retention of mother-baby pair in care [58,59] . Interventions should therefore seek to educate mothers and guardians on the grave importance of early diagnosis in pediatric HIV.…”

Evaluating laboratory request forms submitted to haematology and blood transfusion departments at a hospital in Northwest Nigeria

“…Unfortunately, the converse is true in most laboratories in developing countries, such as Nigeria. 17 , 18 In these countries, the focus tends to be on the analytical phase of the work flow without consideration of other factors or variables beyond the control of the laboratory. In Nigeria, there are few studies on the handling of LRFs or the impact of the LRF on the pre-analytical phase of laboratory process.…”