Table 10. Quantitative results from the lessons learned questionnaire (n = 28).
| Infrastructure | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|
| n (%) | ||
| Laboratory renovation required | 5 (18) | 23 (82) |
| Air conditioning installed for test implementation | 15 (54) | 13 (46) |
| Generator installed for test implementation | 11 (39) | 17 (61) |
| Installation biosafety cabinet for test implementation | 3 (11) | 25 (89) |
| Equipment performance | ||
| Failed installation check (one module per machine) | 2 (7) | 26 (93) |
| Experienced performance problems | 9 (32) 1 | 21 68) |
| Assay performance | ||
| Staff computer training required | 10 (36) | 18 (64) |
| High error rates reported to Cepheid | 14 (50) | 14 (50) |
| Modules replaced on advice of Cepheid | 11 (39) | 17 (61) |
| Module calibration | ||
| Module exchange-based calibration procedure followed | 11 (39) 2 | 17 (61) |
| Impact on programmes | ||
| Sputum collection strategy changed | 7 (25) | 21 (75) |
| Overall impressions | ||
| Satisfaction with the system due to: simplicity of procedure | 17 (61) | 11 (39) |
| Speed of assay | 6 (21) | 22 (79) |
| Increased sensitivity cf. smear microscopy | 5 (18) | 23 (82) |
| Frustrations due to: high error rates | 17 (61) | 11 (39) |
| Lack of Russian-language software | 3 (11) | 25 (89) |
| Lack of isoniazid resistance detection | 2 (7) | 26 (93) |
| Most positive aspects | ||
| On-site rifampicin resistance detection | 11 (39) | 17 (61) |
| Increased sensitivity for tuberculosis detection | 12 (43) | 16 (57) |
| Speed to results | 2 (7) | 26 (93) |
| Simplicity of use | 3 (11) | 25 (89) |
1. 5/9 experienced barcode scanning problems; 2/9 sites had GeneXpert machine failure when the ambient temperature exceeded 30°C; 1/9 had a cartridge stuck in a module.
2. This process went smoothly for 8/11; 2/11 experienced customs problems, and 1/11 experienced a long delay in shipment of replacement modules.