Conference Abstract | Volume 9, Abstract 080 (ConfProc7) | Published: 13 Aug 2026
Farouk Saeed1,&, Helena Acquah2, Richard Kutame3, Gifty Boateng3
1Savannah Regional Health Directorate, Ghana Health Service, Damongo, 2Veterinary Service Directorate, Accra, 3National Public Health and Reference Laboratory, Ghana Health Service, Accra
&Corresponding author: Farouk Saeed, Savannah Regional Health Directorate, Ghana Health Service, Damongo, Email: fkumar470@gmail.com
Received: 29 Aug 2025, Accepted: 28 Oct 2025, Published: 13 Aug 2026
Domain: Laboratory Systems Strengthening
Keywords: Laboratory assessment, equipment, capacity
©Farouk Saeed et al. Journal of Interventional Epidemiology and Public Health (ISSN: 2664-2824). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Cite this article: Farouk Saeed et al. Laboratory capacity assessment in three districts of the Savannah Region, Ghana, 2025. Journal of Interventional Epidemiology and Public Health. 2026;9(ConfProc7):080. https://doi.org/10.37432/JIEPH-CONFPRO7-0080
Globally, medical laboratories contribute about 70% of medical decisions. While a strong laboratory capacity is crucial to these decisions, its maintenance could be more challenging in resource-constraint settings. In 2019, the Savannah Region was created to serve the health needs of the people, however, critical laboratory infrastructures are still lacking. We aimed to determine the laboratory capacity gaps that exist in the Savannah Region of Ghana to help identify system strengthening activities.
A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted between January and April, 2025. We used the WHO laboratory assessment tool to collect data from 10 laboratories. Data was collected through structured interviews. Responses were scored and estimated using averages and percentages. Capacity was defined based on a 100-point scale and interpreted as weak score (<50%), a moderate score (50-80%), and a strong score (>80%). Results were presented in tables and charts.
Overall, the laboratories received a weak average score, 49.8% (95% CI [44.9-54.7]). The highest average score was in testing performance, 74.3% (95% CI [66.8-81.8]) and the lowest score was in biorisk management, 25.4% (95% CI [10.8-40.0]). Point-of-care test (POCT) (40.2%) was the most used test discipline, while advanced disciplines such as bacteriological culture, cytology and water testing were limited. Major gaps identified included human resources, equipment, laboratory safety and public health functions.
Laboratory capacity was found to be weak and limited as per the WHO laboratory assessment. The greatest gaps were human resources, quality assurance, equipment adequacy, laboratory safety and public health functions. These gaps have direct implications for public health surveillance and response. Addressing these challenges will require targeted capacity-building programs and stronger coordination among health stakeholders at both the regional and national levels.
Menu