AUTHORS
Perovic O, Yahaya AA, Viljoen C, Ndihokubwayo JB, Smith M, Coulibaly SO, De Gouveia L, Oxenford CJ, Cognat S, Ismail H, Frean J
ABSTRACT
Background: In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a regional microbiology external quality assessment (EQA) programme for national public health laboratories in the African region, initially targeting priority epidemic-prone bacterial diseases, and later including other common bacterial pathogens. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the efficacy of an EQA programme as a laboratory quality system evaluation tool. Methods: We analysed the proficiency of laboratories’ performance of bacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) for the period 2011-2016. The National Institute for Communicable Diseases of South Africa provided technical coordination following an agreement with WHO, and supplied EQA samples of selected bacterial organisms for microscopy (Gram stain), identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). National public health laboratories, as well as laboratories involved in the Invasive Bacterial Diseases Surveillance Network, were enrolled by the WHO Regional Office for Africa to participate in the EQA programme. We analysed participants’ results of 41 surveys, which included the following organisms sent as challenges: Streptococcus pneumonia, Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, Salmonella Typhi, Salmonella Enteritidis, Shigella flexneri, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus anginosus, Enterococcus faecium, Serratia marcescens, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Enterobacter cloacae. Results: Eighty-one laboratories from 45 countries participated. Overall, 76% of participants obtained acceptable scores for identification, but a substantial proportion of AST scores were not in the acceptable range. Of 663 assessed AST responses, only 42% had acceptable scores. Conclusion: In the African Region, implementation of diagnostic stewardship in clinical bacteriology is generally suboptimal. This report illustrates that AST is poorly done compared to microscopy and identification. It is critically important to make the case for implementation of quality assurance in AST, as it is the cornerstone of antimicrobial resistance surveillance reporting and implementation of the Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System.
Click here to read the article, published in MDPI.
