1. Presentations for Day 3 Chair: Uganda
Sessions started at 8:40 am with a prayer
Summary of Day 2 presented by Burundi
A small correction was made on items that appeared on that day’s presentation. An addition was made on Mulago’s renovation strategy

2. Waste Management by Kenya
Focused on areas where waste was handled
Purpose: to show the level of compliance to the waste mgt requirement and to identify gaps in the implementation
85% had shown partial compliance
March 2017: 57% Partial compliance
, 43% no compliance
Recommendation All facilities need assistance to address areas to achieve full compliance
Need for training in Biorisk Mgt, More funding

3. Waste management by Uganda
Use SLIPTA checklist and focused on awareness, infrastructure and equipment
Audits conducted in March and December 2016: In March, none of the sites were compliant – 90%, December: Tremendous improvement.
Discussions: need to address gaps, Lack of training,
Recommendations: ECSA to coordinate and support countries, UNHLS include waste mgt training included in curuculla

4. Discussions and Questions
Waste mgt performance correlates to lab performance
Key cross-cutting issues
Any environmental issues on WM
Data presented for which period
Responses:
Uganda
There is a correlation between WM and Lab performance on SLIPTA
Data for March & December No Data yet for 2017
Kenya
Critical issues: Need for indepth analysis
No correlation

5. Questions continued
Any correlation when assessment is done by internal assessors and external assessor?
Other countries have better data than what we are seeing
Response:
It was agreed assessment be done by trained peer assessors
Performance does not show details of the quality of performance and therefore no evidence of correlation but need for further analysis
Area for further study on evidence of the SLIPTA checklist on WM. Unpublished data show area of danger for waste handlers
Need to Standardise the process bse SLIPTA checklist does not adequately cover area of WM since the Scope of WM is beyond the lab
Double peer assessor with internal assessors to rule out bias

6. Satellite report - Kenya
3 staff
8 sites
9 under EAPHLN
General performances were good
March 2017 regional Peer review assessment
Presented in terms of QSE Elements:
Evaluation and audits improved but still needs more focus
ID of NC major challenge.
PBF funds used to purchase photocopier and printer

7. Burundi Satellite report
8 Labs in the Network: initially 5 then 3new ones
Presentation about 5 labs
Equipment has improved: Xpert, BSC, autoclaves, refrigerator, incubators,etc.
Peer assessment results: 4 labs at 3 stars and 1 at 2 stars
Challenges: Stockout, HR, sustained performance, equipment calibration & RCA
Opportunities: QMS implemented, Capacity building, mentorship, supervision, infrastructure, equipment and peer and national audits

8. TZ Satellite report
MMH a publc institution, started implementation of LQMS IN 2008 and accredited on July 2016 by SADCAS (FBC, TB,CD4, Malaria)
Strength: referrals, infrastructure, modern equipment, strong Lab Mgt & documentation and adequate HR
Challenges: No strategic plan, biomedical engineers, insufficient budget, weak supply chain mgt, insufficient knowledge on QMS by other HCHs and Hospital mgt
Achievements: Technical & financial support, capacity building, equipment
Priority areas for action: Equipment maintenance 7 calibration, availability of EQA materials, lab action plan, capacity building on hospital waste management – BRM, availability of funds

9. Questions and Discussions
Results of EQA for TZ: Frequency?
Do we have exchange visits within countries or across borders to learn from accredited peers?
Other labs not supported by the project, what are we doing to share the knowledge from labs supported by the project? Sustainability?
Responses TZ
Exchange visit: Peer mentorships by excelling labs within country to motivate other labs
EQA: Frequency – Biannually and adequate
Professor Joloba: Which key to turn on to make the labs move
Key lessons: Other projects have implemented their activities based on the model of the project
Sustainability: Government commitment key, Coordinating exchange visit, Peer mentorship

10. Role of mentors
Role: Guidance, leadership 7 championing LQMS & accreditation, link, training mentees, develop & ensure adherence to mentorship work plan and follow up on implementation.
Approach: Two weeks contact time, follow up on implementation, development and sharingof action points & adherence to timelines
Achievements: Improved TAT, increased beneficiaries, standardized LQMS, Team building, spearheading accreditation application

11. Questions and discussions
Evaluate the performance of mentors
Effect of delayed contact with mentees
Adequate number of mentors
Equipment sustainability (GeneXpert)