SETTING: Drug susceptibility testing (DST) is recommended in Kenya to identify multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in persons registered for tuberculosis (TB) retreatment. DST is performed at a central laboratory with a two-step growth-based process and a regional laboratory with a simultaneous molecular- and growth-based process. OBJECTIVE: To compare proportions of retreatment cases who underwent DST and turnaround times for hospitals referring to the central vs. regional laboratory. DESIGN: Cases were persons registered for TB retreatment from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013. Records of 11 hospitals and 7 hospitals referring patients to the regional and central laboratories, respectively, were reviewed. RESULTS: Respectively 238/432 (55%) and 88/355 (25%) cases from hospitals referring to the regional and central laboratories underwent DST. The mean time from case registration to receipt of DST results and initiation of MDR-TB treatment was quicker in hospitals referring to the regional laboratory. The time required for the transportation of specimens, specimen testing and receipt of DST results at hospitals was shorter for the regional laboratory (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Testing was faster and more complete at hospitals referring to the regional laboratory. A comprehensive review of MDR-TB detection in Kenya is required to increase the proportion of cases receiving DST.

BACKGROUND: Kenya is home to several high-performing internationally-accredited research laboratories, whilst most public sector laboratories have historically lacked functioning quality management systems. In 2010, Kenya enrolled an initial eight regional and four national laboratories into the Strengthening Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation (SLMTA) programme. To address the challenge of a lack of mentors for the regional laboratories, three were paired, or 'twinned', with nearby accredited research laboratories to provide institutional mentorship, whilst the other five received standard mentorship. Objectives: This study examines results from the eight regional laboratories in the initial SLMTA group, with a focus on mentorship models. METHODS: Three SLMTA workshops were interspersed with three-month periods of improvement project implementation and mentorship. Progress was evaluated at baseline, mid-term, and exit using the Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA) audit checklist and scores were converted into a zero- to five-star scale. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean score for the eight laboratories was 32%; all laboratories were below the one-star level. At mid-term, all laboratories had measured improvements. However, the three twinned laboratories had increased an average of 32 percentage points and reached one to three stars; whilst the five non-twinned laboratories increased an average of 10 percentage points and remained at zero stars. At exit, twinned laboratories had increased an average 12 additional percentage points (44 total), reaching two to four stars; non-twinned laboratories increased an average of 28 additional percentage points (38 total), reaching one to three stars. CONCLUSION: The partnership used by the twinning model holds promise for future collaborations between ministries of health and state-of-the-art research laboratories in their regions for laboratory quality improvement. Where they exist, such laboratories may be valuable resources to be used judiciously so as to accelerate sustainable quality improvement initiated through SLMTA.