Dataset Information

Implementation of COVID-19 Laboratory Testing Certification Program (CoLTeP) in African Region.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Coronavirus disease 2019 was declared a global pandemic in March 2020 with correct and early detection of cases using laboratory testing central to the response. Hence, the establishment of quality management systems and monitoring their implementation are critical. This study describes the experience of implementing the COVID-19 Laboratory Testing and Certification Program (CoLTeP) in Africa.

Methods

Private and public laboratories conducting SARS-CoV-2 testing using polymerase chain reaction were enrolled and assessed for quality and safety using the CoLTeP checklists.

Results

A total of 84 laboratories from 7 countries were assessed between April 2021 to December 2021 with 52% of these from the private sector. Among them, 64% attained 5 stars and were certified. Section 4 had the highest average score of 92% and the lowest of 78% in Section 3. Also, 82% of non-conformities (NCs) were related to sample collection, transportation, and risk assessments. Non-availability, inconsistency in performing, recording, instituting corrective actions for failed internal and external quality controls were among major NCs reported.

Conclusions

Laboratories identified for SARS-CoV-2 testing by public and private institutions mostly met the requirements for quality and safe testing as measured by the CoLTeP checklist.

SUBMITTER: Maruta T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9310066 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: With increasing insecticide resistance in malaria-endemic countries there is an urgent need for safe and effective novel vector control products. To improve the capacity of facilities that test insecticides in sub-Saharan Africa, a programme is supporting seven facilities towards Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) certification, the globally recognized standard for quality management system (QMS) for the conduct of non-clinical and environmental studies. The World Health Organization (WHO) GLP Handbook provides guidance on a stepwise approach to implement a GLP compliant QMS. This study assesses auditor GLP checklists and timings outlined in the WHO GLP Handbook in the real-life context of a Tanzanian insecticide-testing facility, evaluating their implementation in this context. Methods and Principle Findings: We conducted document review and semi-structured interviews with staff at all levels of the test facility to explore factors that influenced progress towards GLP certification. We found that while auditor GLP checklists underemphasised computer systems, they were otherwise broadly applicable. Factors that delayed time to completion of GLP certification included the need for extensive infrastructure improvements, the availability of regional expertise related to GLP, the capacity of national and regional external systems and services to meet GLP compliance requirements, and training development required for Standard Operating Procedure implementation. Conclusion: The standards required for full GLP compliance are rigorous, with an expected completion timeline to implementation of 24 months. This study shows that in low and middle-income countries this timeline may be unrealistic due to challenges related to infrastructure development and lack of regional capacity and expertise. We recommend a comprehensive gap analysis when starting a project, including these areas which are beyond those recommended by the WHO GLP Handbook. These challenges can be successfully overcome and the experience in Tanzania provides key lessons for other facilities seeking GLP certification or the development of similar QMS.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing the WHO's endorsement of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculosis diagnosis in 2010, Uganda's ministry of health introduced the assay in its laboratory network in 2012. However, assessing the quality of the result produced from this technique is one of its major implementation challenges. To bridge this gap, the National tuberculosis reference laboratory (NTRL) introduced the GeneXpert MTB/RIF proficiency testing (PT) Scheme in 2015.MethodsA descriptive cross-sectional study on the GeneXpert PT scheme in Uganda was conducted between 2015 and 2018. Sets of panels each comprising four 1ml cryovial liquid samples were sent out to enrolled participants at preset testing periods. The laboratories' testing accuracies were assessed by comparing their reported results to the expected and participants' consensus results. Percentage scores were assigned and feedback reports were sent back to laboratories. Follow up of sites with unsatisfactory results was done through "on and off-site support". Concurrently, standardization of standard operating procedures (SOPs) and practices to the requirements of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17043:2010 was pursued.ResultsParticipants gradually increased during the program from 56 in the pilot study to 148 in Round 4 (2018). Continual participation of a particular laboratory yielded an odd of 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22 to 4.34] times greater for achieving a score of above 80% with each new round it participated. The "on and off-site" support supervision documented improved performance of failing laboratories. Records of GeneXpert MTB/RIF PT were used to achieve accreditation to ISO 17043:2010 in 2018.ConclusionContinued participation in GeneXpert MTB/RIF PT improves testing accuracy of laboratories. Effective implementation of this scheme requires competent human resources, facility and equipment, functional quality management system, and adherence to ISO 17043:2010.

Project description:Objective: To distinguish COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia patients and classify COVID-19 patients into low-risk and high-risk at admission by laboratory indicators. Materials and methods: In this retrospective cohort, a total of 3,563 COVID-19 patients and 118 non-COVID-19 pneumonia patients were included. There are two cohorts of COVID-19 patients, including 548 patients in the training dataset, and 3,015 patients in the testing dataset. Laboratory indicators were measured during hospitalization for all patients. Based on laboratory indicators, we used the support vector machine and joint random sampling to risk stratification for COVID-19 patients at admission. Based on laboratory indicators detected within the 1st week after admission, we used logistic regression and joint random sampling to develop the survival mode. The laboratory indicators of COVID-10 and non-COVID-19 were also compared. Results: We first identified the significant laboratory indicators related to the severity of COVID-19 in the training dataset. Neutrophils percentage, lymphocytes percentage, creatinine, and blood urea nitrogen with AUC >0.7 were included in the model. These indicators were further used to build a support vector machine model to classify patients into low-risk and high-risk at admission in the testing dataset. Results showed that this model could stratify the patients in the testing dataset effectively (AUC = 0.89). Our model still has good performance at different times (Mean AUC: 0.71, 0.72, 0.72, respectively for 3, 5, and 7 days after admission). Moreover, laboratory indicators detected within the 1st week after admission were able to estimate the probability of death (AUC = 0.95). We identified six indicators with permutation p < 0.05, including eosinophil percentage (p = 0.007), white blood cell count (p = 0.045), albumin (p = 0.041), aspartate transaminase (p = 0.043), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.002), and hemoglobin (p = 0.031). We could diagnose COVID-19 and differentiate it from other kinds of viral pneumonia based on these laboratory indicators. Conclusions: Our risk-stratification model based on laboratory indicators could help to diagnose, monitor, and predict severity at an early stage of COVID-19. In addition, laboratory findings could be used to distinguish COVID-19 and non-COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundThe declaration of SARS-CoV-2 as a public health emergency of international concern in January 2020 prompted the need to strengthen infection prevention and control (IPC) capacities within health care facilities (HCF). IPC guidelines, with standard and transmission-based precautions to be put in place to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 at these HCFs were developed. Based on these IPC guidelines, a rapid assessment scorecard tool, with 14 components, to enhance assessment and improvement of IPC measures at HCFs was developed. This study assessed the level of implementation of the IPC measures in HCFs across the African Region during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodAn observational study was conducted from April 2020 to November 2022 in 17 countries in the African Region to monitor the progress made in implementing IPC standard and transmission-based precautions in primary-, secondary- and tertiary-level HCFs. A total of 5168 primary, secondary and tertiary HCFs were assessed. The HCFs were assessed and scored each component of the tool. Statistical analyses were done using R (version 4.2.0).ResultsA total of 11 564 assessments were conducted in 5153 HCFs, giving an average of 2.2 assessments per HCF. The baseline median score for the facility assessments was 60.2%. Tertiary HCFs and those dedicated to COVID-19 patients had the highest IPC scores. Tertiary-level HCFs had a median score of 70%, secondary-level HCFs 62.3% and primary-level HCFs 56.8%. HCFs dedicated to COVID-19 patients had the highest scores, with a median of 68.2%, followed by the mixed facilities that attended to both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, with 64.84%. On the components, there was a strong correlation between high IPC assessment scores and the presence of IPC focal points in HCFs, the availability of IPC guidelines in HCFs and HCFs that had all their health workers trained in basic IPC.ConclusionIn conclusion, a functional IPC programme with a dedicated focal person is a prerequisite for implementing improved IPC measures at the HCF level. In the absence of an epidemic, the general IPC standards in HCFs are low, as evidenced by the low scores in the non-COVID-19 treatment centres.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 disease has had a profound impact worldwide since it was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Laboratory testing is crucial to prompt identification of positive cases, initiation of treatment and management strategies. However, medical scientists are vulnerable to infection due to the risk of exposure in the laboratory and the community. This study sought to determine the awareness of laboratory safety measures, assess the personal efforts of medical scientists in creating a safe laboratory environment for testing and examine the laboratory safety enabling factors.MethodsThe data used for the study were generated among medical scientists in Nigeria through an internet-broadcasted questionnaire and were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25).ResultsThe majority of the respondents had a high awareness of laboratory safety measures (60.3%) and demonstrated good personal efforts in creating a safe laboratory testing environment (63%). The level of awareness of laboratory safety measures was significantly associated with respondents' level of education (χ2 = 6.143; p = 0.046) and influences respondents' efforts in creating a safe laboratory testing environment (p = 0.007). However, just a few respondents could convincingly attest to the availability of adequate and appropriate PPE with proper utilization training (45.1%), adequate rest and other welfare packages (45.8%) as well as access to appropriate Biological Safety Cabinets (BSCs) and other essential equipment in their laboratories (48.8%). Furthermore, a significant association existed between the availability of laboratory safety enabling factors and respondents' efforts in creating a safe environment for testing with the p-value ranging between < 0.0001 and 0.003.ConclusionThis study revealed that despite the high awareness of safety measures and good personal efforts of the study participants in creating a safe laboratory-testing environment, there was poor availability of safety facilities, equipment, support and welfare packages required to enhance their safety. It is, therefore, crucial to provide necessary laboratory biosafety equipment and PPE in order not to compromise medical scientists' safety as they perform their duties in COVID-19 pandemic response.