4.3 Article

Most Clinical Laboratory Testing in Kampala Occurs in High-Volume, High-Quality Laboratories or Low-Volume, Low-Quality Laboratories A Tale of Two Cities

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 143, Issue 1, Pages 50-56

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCPCYA54DWZQPQT

Keywords

Quality improvement; Point of care; Test utilization; Volume; Uganda; Africa; Laboratory; Global health

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To describe key characteristics (laboratory quality, test volumes, and complexity) of clinical laboratories in Kampala, Uganda (population similar to 1.7 million). Methods: Cross-sectional survey using a standard questionnaire to document laboratory type and quality, as well as test menus and volumes. Quality was based on the World Health Organization Africa Region checklist. Results: Of the 954 laboratories identified (a density of one laboratory per 1,781 persons), 779 (82%) performed only simple kit tests or light microscope examinations. The 95% (907/954) of laboratories for whom volumes were obtained performed an average aggregate of 13,189 tests daily, for a test utilization rate of around 2 tests per individual per year. Laboratories could be segregated into eight groups based on quality, test volume, and complexity. However, 90% of the testing was performed by just two groups: (I) low-volume (<= 100 tests daily), low-quality laboratories performing simple tests or (2) high-volume (>100 tests daily), high-quality laboratories. Each of these two groups did 45% of the daily testing volume (90% combined). Conclusions: Clinical laboratory density in Kampala (1/1,781 persons) is high, approaching that in the United States (1/1,347 persons). Low-volume/low-quality and high-volume/high-quality laboratories do 90% of the daily aggregate testing. Quality improvement (QI) schemes for Africa must be appropriate to low-volume laboratories as well as to the large laboratories that have been the focus of previous QI efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available