English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  The surge of donor funds to fight HIV&AIDS epidemic inadvertently resulted in the setup of laboratories as parallel structures to rapidly respond to the identified need. However these parallel structures are a threat to the existing fragile laboratory systems. Laboratory service integration is critical to remedy this situation. This paper describes an approach to quantitatively measure and track integration of HIV-related laboratory services into the mainstream laboratory services and highlight some key intervention steps taken, to enhance service integration.    Method  A quantitative before-and-after study conducted in 122 Family Health International (FHI360) supported health facilities across Nigeria. A minimum service package was identified including management structure; trainings; equipment utilization and maintenance; information, commodity and quality management for laboratory integration. A check list was used to assess facilities at baseline and 3 months follow-up. Level of integration was assessed on an ordinal scale (0 = no integration, 1 = partial integration, 2 = full integration) for each service package. A composite score grading expressed as a percentage of total obtainable score of 14 was defined and used to classify facilities (≤80% FULL, 25% to 79% PARTIAL and <25% NO integration). Weaknesses were noted and addressed.    Results  We analyzed 9 (7.4%) primary, 104 (85.2%) secondary and 9 (7.4%) tertiary level facilities. There were statistically significant differences in integration levels between baseline and 3 months follow-up period (p<0.01). Baseline median total integration score was 4 (IQR 3 to 5) compared to 7 (IQR 4 to 9) at 3 months follow-up (p = 0.000). Partial and fully integrated laboratory systems were 64 (52.5%) and 0 (0.0%) at baseline, compared to 100 (82.0%) and 3 (2.4%) respectively at 3 months follow-up (p = 0.000).    Discussion  This project showcases our novel approach to measure the status of each laboratory on the integration continuum.

Implementing and Measuring the Level of Laboratory Service Integration in a Program Setting in Nigeria