Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Original Research
Maximising mentorship: Variations in laboratory mentorship models implemented in Zimbabwe
Submitted: 05 September 2014 | Published: 03 November 2014
About the author(s)
Phoebe Nzombe, Zimbabwe National Quality Assurance Programme (ZINQAP) Trust, ZimbabweElizabeth T. Luman, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), United States
Edwin Shumba, Zimbabwe National Quality Assurance Programme (ZINQAP) Trust, Zimbabwe
Douglas Mangwanya, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, Zimbabwe
Raiva Simbi, Ministry of Health and Child Welfare, Zimbabwe
Peter H. Kilmarx, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Zimbabwe
Sibongile N. Zimuto, Zimbabwe National Quality Assurance Programme (ZINQAP), Zimbabwe
Abstract
Background: Laboratory mentorship has proven to be an effective tool in building capacity and assisting laboratories in establishing quality management systems. The Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Welfare implemented four mentorship models in 19 laboratories in conjunction with the Strengthening Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation (SLMTA) programme.
Objectives: This study outlines how the different models were implemented, cost involved per model and results achieved.
Methods: Eleven of the laboratories had been trained previously in SLMTA (Cohort I). They were assigned to one of three mentorship models based on programmatic considerations: Laboratory Manager Mentorship (Model 1, four laboratories); One Week per Month Mentorship (Model 2, four laboratories); and Cyclical Embedded Mentorship (Model 3, three laboratories). The remaining eight laboratories (Cohort II) were enrolled in Cyclical Embedded Mentorship incorporated with SLMTA training (Model 4). Progress was evaluated using a standardised audit checklist.
Results: At SLMTA baseline, Model 1–3 laboratories had a median score of 30%. After SLMTA, at mentorship baseline, they had a median score of 54%. At the post-mentorship audit they reached a median score of 75%. Each of the three mentorship models for Cohort I had similar median improvements from pre- to post-mentorship (17 percentage points for Model 1, 23 for Model 2 and 25 for Model 3; p > 0.10 for each comparison). The eight Model 4 laboratories had a median baseline score of 24%; after mentorship, their median score increased to 63%. Median improvements from pre-SLMTA to post-mentorship were similar for all four models.
Conclusion: Several mentorship models can be considered by countries depending on the available resources for their accreditation implementation plan.
Keywords
Metrics
Total abstract views: 5699Total article views: 8620
Crossref Citations
1. Key success factors for the implementation of quality management systems in developing countries
Iryna Tanasiichuk, Olha Karaman, Larysa Natrus
African Journal of Laboratory Medicine vol: 12 issue: 1 year: 2023
doi: 10.4102/ajlm.v12i1.2058