Search

This article assesses the availability of essential diagnostic tests in primary health care facilities in two districts in Sierra Leone. In addition to evaluating whether a test is physically present at a facility, it extends the concept of availability to include whether equipment is functional and whether infrastructure, systems, personnel and resources are in place to allow a particular test to be “ready to hand”, that is, available for immediate use when needed. Between February 2019 and September 2019, a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey was conducted in all 40 Community Health Centres (CHCs) in Western Area, one of five principal divisions in Sierra Leone. The number of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) available ranged from 1–12, with 75% of facilities having 9 or less RDTs available out of a possible 17. While RDTs were overall more widely present than manual assays, there was wide variation between tests. The presence of RDTs at individual facilities was associated with having a permanent laboratory technician on staff. Despite CHCs being formally designated as providing laboratory services, no CHC fulfilled standard World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria for a laboratory. Only 9/40 (22.5%) CHCs had a designated laboratory space and a permanently employed laboratory technician. There was low availability of essential equipment and infrastructure. Supply chains were fragmented and unreliable, including a high dependency (>50%) on informal private sources for the majority of the available RDTs, consumables, and reagents. We conclude that the readiness of diagnostic services, including RDTs, depends on the presence and functionality of essential infrastructure, human resources, equipment and systems and that RDTs are not on their own a solution to infrastructural failings. Efforts to strengthen laboratory systems at the primary care level should take a holistic approach and focus on whether tests are “ready-to-hand” in addition to whether they are physically present.

This paper examines health worker experiences in two areas of post-epidemic preparedness in Sierra Leone - vaccine trials and laboratory strengthening - to reflect on the place of people in current models of epidemic response. Drawing on ethnographic research and interviews with health workers in the aftermath of Ebola, it explores the hopes and expectations that interventions foster for frontline workers in under-resourced health systems, and describes the unseen work involved in sustaining robust response infrastructures. Our analysis focuses on what it means for the people who sustain health systems in an emergency to be 'prepared' for an epidemic. Human preparedness entails more than the presence of a labour force; it involves building and maintaining 'relational infrastructures', often fragile social and moral relationships between health workers, publics, governments, and international organisations. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the value of rethinking human resources from an anthropological perspective, and investing in the safety and support of people at the forefront of response. In describing the labour, personal losses, and social risks undertaken by frontline workers for protocols and practicality to meet in an emergency context, we describe the social process of preparedness; that is, the contextual engineering and investment that make response systems work.

Waste management is notably absent from current discussions about efforts to improve access to diagnostics in low-and middle-income Countries (LMICs). Yet an increase in testing will inevitably lead to an increase in diagnostic waste, especially since many of the diagnostic tests designed for use in LMICs are single-use point-of-care tests. Diagnostic waste poses a threat to both human and environmental health. In this commentary we draw on our experience of diagnostic waste management in Sierra Leone and review current evidence on: the volume and impact of diagnostic waste in LMICs, existing health-care waste management capacity in LMICs, established national and international policies for improving health-care waste management, and opportunities for strengthening policy in this area. We argue that questions of safe disposal for diagnostics should not be an afterthought, only posed once questions of access have already been addressed. Moreover, responsibility for safe disposal of diagnostic waste should not fall solely on national health systems by default. Instead, consideration of the end-life of diagnostic products must be fully integrated into the diagnostic access agenda and greater pressure should be placed on manufacturers to take responsibility for the full life-cycle of their products.