Published in PLOS One on 2026-03-20, this study is presented as an attributed evidence briefing. The excerpts below are the original researchers’ words, reproduced under their Creative Commons Attribution licence. Health Signal has selected the abstract and, where needed, opening background paragraphs; the complete methods, results, limitations and references remain in the linked paper.
Original authors: Elizabeth Sorvor, Mawuli Dzodzomenyo, Justice Nonvignon, Genevieve Cecilia Aryeetey, Enoch Aninagyei
Source: PLOS One • DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0335380
Read the complete primary study ↗ · Creative Commons Attribution licence
From the researchers
Abstract
In Ghana, medical laboratories are a vital component of the health system, but there has been limited evidence on how well they meet international quality standards. This study assessed compliance with laboratory standards by medical laboratories in the Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana.
A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among forty-three (43) laboratory facilities, including those operating within healthcare facilities and private standalone laboratories, in the Kumasi metropolis from 8th March to 26th November, 2021. The healthcare facilities assessed include seven (7) government, four (4) Christian Health Association of Ghana (GHAG), twenty-one (21) private hospitals, and eleven (11) standalone laboratories. The World Health Organisation Stepwise Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (WHO SLIPTA) checklist was used to assess compliance with laboratory standards. The checklist comprises 12 main sections, containing 117 questions, resulting in a total of 275 scores. Each item is awarded a point value of 2, 3, or 5 points based on relative importance and complexity. Scores and percentages of compliance are categorized as follows: 0–150 (<55%), 151–177 (55–64%), 178–205 (65–74%), 206–232 (75–84%), 233–260 (85–94%), and 261–275 (≥95%). These categories ultimately translate to a rating of 0–5 stars. Descriptive analysis and the Kruskal-Wallis test were conducted to examine the differences in overall compliance scores across the types of health facilities.
The overall median compliance score was 61(interquartile range 53–66), the minimum score was 49, and the maximum score was 104. CHAG facilities had significantly higher scores than private facilities (Z = 2.53, p = 0.03) and standalone facilities (Z = 3.60, p < 0.001). Similarly, scores for government facilities were significantly higher than standalone facilities (Z = 3.30, p < 0.001).
All facilities had a zero (0) star rating and failed to meet the minimum compliance level of 55%.
Introduction
Medical laboratory services have evolved to become an integral part of healthcare delivery systems worldwide [1, 2]. The role of the medical laboratory is recognized as critical in the general improvement of countries’ health systems [3]. The assertion that “ seventy percent (70%) of clinical decisions depend on laboratory data” has become increasingly undeniable [4]. However, evidence suggests that 47% of the world’s population lacks access to diagnostic services, with rates ranging from 35% to 62% in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [5].
As healthcare systems advance and global health risks grow, quality medical laboratory services are vital for ensuring high-quality healthcare provision [6, 7]. Lack of access to quality diagnostics is one of the most significant causes of unsafe health [8]. Quality assurance in medical laboratories is a global necessity, significantly impacting patient outcomes and disease surveillance [5, 9]. As healthcare systems face growing patient demands, the resurgence of diseases, the introduction of new technologies, and evolving regulatory standards, the quality of medical laboratories has become a critical concern [10, 11]. As the demand for diagnostic services continues to surge, laboratories face the imperative to balance increased throughput with uncompromising accuracy and reliability [12, 13]. This necessitates a holistic, systematic approach that encompasses every facet of laboratory operations, including compliance with quality standards [14].
Reading this evidence
Use the full paper to check the study design, participant selection, comparator and outcome definitions before drawing a practical conclusion. An association does not by itself show cause and effect. A reported performance measure needs its denominator and uncertainty. A finding from a particular facility, sample or time period should retain that scope when it is discussed elsewhere.
This briefing makes the source accessible within the wider research & evidence desk. It does not assess an individual patient or certify a product. When considering relevance to another health system, examine the original authors’ account of context and limitations, then seek local implementation evidence. The related reporting below provides other studies to read alongside this one; it is a topic connection, rather than a claim that their results are directly comparable.
© 2026 Elizabeth Sorvor, Mawuli Dzodzomenyo, Justice Nonvignon, Genevieve Cecilia Aryeetey, Enoch Aninagyei. Excerpts reproduced under CC BY. Selection, formatting and contextual notes by Health Signal. The researchers are the authors of the source study, not members of Health Signal’s staff.
Explore connected evidence
- Evidence brief: Benchmarking newborn care quality in Ghana: Evidence from structured observations of clinical practice against WHO quality standards
- Evidence brief: Availability and affordability of essential medicines for non-communicable disease management in primary healthcare: Evidence from three municipalities in Ghana
- Evidence brief: Family support mediates the relationship between medication adherence and quality of life among patients with hypertension in Ghana: A cross-sectional study
