www.ias2011.org decentralization of laboratory testing capacity in resource- limited settings: 7...

www.ias2011.org

Decentralization of Laboratory Testing Capacity in Resource-Limited Settings: 7 Years of Experience in six African Countries

F Marinucci, PhD 1, S Medina-Moreno 1, AD Paterniti 1, M Wattleworth 1 ,RR Redfield, MD 1 1Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, 21201 US

Abstract no. WEAD0101

www.ias2011.org

AIDSRelief Consortium: PEPFAR Track 1.0 IP

Catholic Relief Services (CRS)

University of Maryland School of Medicine – Institute of Human Virology (IHV)

Futures Group (FG)

Catholic Medical Mission Board (CMMB)

IMA World Health (IMA)

Who We Are?

www.ias2011.org

98

22

44

18

19

28

3

6

Where Do We Work?

246Local

PartnerTreatmentFacilities

(LPTF)+ 184 satellite sites

8

www.ias2011.org

Who Do We Work With?

• 229 sites with laboratory mostly in underserved areas– Urban 58/229 (25%), Peri-urban 20/229 (9%), Rural 151/229 (66%)

• A majority of non-public sites and mission facilities– 27% public and 73% non-public. The proportion between public and

non-public sites differs by country

• Breakdown by level – 17% primary 80% secondary 3% tertiary

www.ias2011.org

Laborator

y Level* General Description Location

General

Description

Level IPrimary - Health post and health center laboratories that

primarily serve outpatientsRural Villages

Level IISecondary - Laboratories in intermediate referral facilities for

health centers (e.g. district hospitals)

Peri-

urban

Towns outside

city or regional

towns

Level III

Tertiary - Laboratories in a regional/provincial referral

hospital that may be part of a regional or provincial health

administration

UrbanRegional towns

or city

*In some countries additional tiers may exist    

Laboratory levels classification based on Maputo Harmonization (2008)

www.who.int/entity/diagnostics_laboratory/Maputo-Declaration_2008.pdf

www.ias2011.org

UMSOM-IHV Model of Care Delivery

• Cornerstone: decentralization of care and treatment

• Care and Tx integrated into existing health care system

• Multidisciplinary approach with different areas of intervention

• Adherence as a vital therapeutic intervention

• Defined catchment area

• Highly supported community based adherence follow up

• Medically driven CQI

• Point-of-care laboratory capacity

www.ias2011.org

Centralized System

Laboratory Approaches

Point-of-Care System

• Key Advantages

– Quality is maintained though less complicated means

– High-throughput, low reagent cost instrumentation is utilized

• Key Disadvantages

– Limits for growth– Specimen or patient transport– Ineffective information systems

• Key Advantages

– Patients’ timely access to diagnostics and results

– No limits for growth

• Key Disadvantages

– Complexity of quality systems– Higher staff turnover– Complexity of instrument service

and support– Infrastructure Challenges

www.ias2011.org

On-Site Laboratory Capacity

HIV diagnosis: rapid testing Immunological staging: CD4 absolute/percentage Safety monitoring: Hct or Hb, ALT, Creat Major OI diagnosis: AFB, BF malaria, gram staining, CrAg Monitoring of treatment response/treatment failure

www.ias2011.org

Three-phase model implemented in collaboration with local partners in Nigeria, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, and Zambia

Implementation strategy

1. site assessment and improvement (Y1-Y3)

2. appropriate technology selection with capacity building through training and laboratory mentoring (Y1-Y5)

3. quality management system strengthening and continuous quality improvement (Y6-Y7)

www.ias2011.org

Phase I

o Assessment of site by multidisciplinary teams

o Overall laboratory capacity evaluation

o Development of site-specific work plan for laboratory strengthening

o Laboratory infrastructure refitting

www.ias2011.org

Phase II

o Appropriate technology selection and advocacy

1. national guidelines on equipment/testing algorithm

2. in-country suppliers able to provide reagents and technical assistance

3. population size of the catchment area of each site

o Capacity building through practical training and laboratory mentoring

1. Onsite: specific needs, integrated into existing work plans 2. Centralized: aimed to develop in-country laboratory network3. HQ training: comprehensive clinical lab training for field staff

www.ias2011.org

Phase III

Quality management system strengthening

Introduction of new Laboratory Quality Improvement Tools

Improved coordination with MoH, CDC and other stakeholders

www.ias2011.org

Urban Peri-urban Rural

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total sites with HIV-LTC Total sites

Nigeria 0/0 (0%) 9/9 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 0/2 (0%) 0/3 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 19/25 (76%) 0/0 (0%) 33/44 (75%) 44/229 (19%)

Tanzania 0/0 (0%) 22/37 (59%) 1/1 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 0/4 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/1 (0%) 3/55(6%) 0/0 (0%) 26/98 (27%) 98/229 (43%)

Kenya 0/0 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 2/2 (100%) 5/5 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 19/19 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 28/28 (100%) 28/229 (12%)

Rwanda 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 2/22 (9%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 2/22 (9%) 22/229 (10%)

Uganda 2/2 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 0/1 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 1/1 (100%) 4/4 (100%) 9/9 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 17/18 (94%) 18/229 (8%)

Zambia 2/2 (100%) 1/1 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 2/2 (100%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 0/0 (0%) 11/14 (79%) 0/0 (0%) 16/19 (84%) 19/229 (8%)

4/4 (100%)

33/48 (69%)

6/6 (100%)

4/7 (57%)

5/12 (42%)

1/1 (100%)

8/29 (28%)

61/122 (50%)

0/0 (0%)

122/229 (53%)

229/229

(100%)

Level 1 40/229 (17%) Level 2 182/229 (80%) Level 3 7/229 (3%) Urban 58/229 (25%) Peri-urban 20/229 (9%) Rural 151/229 (66%)

Results

Number of Local Partner Treatment Facilities with HIV-LTC by Level and Location

www.ias2011.org

Results cont’d

Lab workers (N=1152) trained by topic (EA)

Increase over time of quality of Malaria and AFB microscopy

www.ias2011.org

Quality of CD4 Testing Capacity (CD4TC) Graded with LQIT by Level and Location

Urban Peri-urban Rural

LQIT gradeLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Total (N=92)

Excellent2/28 (7%) 5/28 (18%) 2/28 (7%) 0/12 (0%) 2/12 (17%) 0/12 (0%) 0/52 (0%) 12/52 (23%) 0/52 (0%) 23/92 (25%)

Good3/28 (11%) 7/28 (25%) 0/28 (0%) 0/12 (0%) 2/12 (17%) 0/12 (0%) 2/52(4%) 17/52 (33%) 0/0 (0%) 31/92 (34%)

Satisfactory0/28 (0%) 6/28 (21%) 1/28 (4%) 3/12 (25%) 4/12 (33%) 0/12 (0%) 4/52 (8%) 12/52 (23%) 0/0 (0%) 30/92 (33%)

Unsatisfactory0/28 (0%) 2/28 (7%) 0/28 (0%) 0/12 (0%) 1/12 (8%) 0/12 (0%) 0/52 (0%) 5/52 (9%) 0/0 (0%) 8/92 (8%)

Results cont’d

www.ias2011.org

AIDSRelief Patients Over Time

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6

On TxIn Care

201,697

335,561

www.ias2011.org

Major achievements

• Low overall LTFU rate 4.2%

• Viral suppression average across 6 countries 88.7%

• Low general mortality rate 8.4%

• Decentralization of comprehensive care and treatment

www.ias2011.org

Conclusions

• Balancing country-specific and site-specific factors was crucial in adapting this flexible model for decentralizing sustainable HIV-LTC

• Integrated and comprehensive approach

• Harmonization and standardization

• Continuous mentoring of laboratory workers was KEY to support decentralization efforts

www.ias2011.org

Thank you

www.ihv.org