Rationale: Effective healthcare starts with an accurate diagnosis, and laboratory plays an important role in this. All health laboratories, be it clinical, animal health, food safety, or environmental health laboratory, contribute to health care and public health security. Therefore, many public health programs are conducting laboratory assessments. The assessment findings can be used for identification of areas in which efforts should be directed in order to strengthen the national laboratory system and health laboratories. Goal: The goal of the project was to assess the national laboratory system and health laboratories of Mongolia. Methods and materials: Laboratory assessment tool (LAT) developed by WHO was used for the assessment of two areas: 1. strategic organization at the national level, and 2. specific technical capacities at the laboratories level. The national laboratory system was assessed using LAT System questionnaire with the participation of MOH officers, and the assessment of laboratories was conducted using LAT Facility questionnaire with the involvement of laboratories representing public and private sectors, all three levels of urban and rural health care organizations, and clinical and public health areas of laboratory services. Results: The strongest areas of the national laboratory system at the policy and regulatory level were “Coordination and management” and “Laboratory information system”. The weaker (below 75%) areas were “Structure and organizations”, “Regulations”, “Infrastructure” and “Human resources”. The insufficient infrastructure score was due to the lack of financing. The main problems detected in the area of Human resources were insufficient financial and organizational support of continuous education of laboratory workers, shortage of trained personnel and incomplete national registration system of laboratory professionals. The results of the laboratory capacities showed that the assessed laboratories were strong in “Data and information management”, “Specimen collection and handling” and “Consumables and reagents”. The testing performance of most laboratories was excellent but the external quality assurance was not available in some test disciplines. The weaker areas of the laboratories were “Facilities”, “Public health functions” and “Biorisk management”. The module “Organization and management” showed lower score mainly due to insufficient budget. The same was with “Facilities”. Although the general safety management of laboratories was very good, the biosafety component was not incorporated in it. Conclusions and recommendations: 1.A national regulatory body needs to be established for the registration of all laboratories and laboratory professional staff. 2.Each laboratory should formally designate an appropriately trained Quality manager, 3.Set-up a formal professional development/ continuous education system for laboratory professionals. 4.Develop biosafety policy and implementation plan. 5.Establish a comprehensive national laboratory information management system (LIMS).

Rationale: Effective healthcare starts with an accurate diagnosis, and laboratory plays an important role in this. All health laboratories, be it clinical, animal health, food safety, or environmental health laboratory, contribute to health care and public health security. Therefore, many public health programs are conducting laboratory assessments. The assessment findings can be used for identification of areas in which efforts should be directed in order to strengthen the national laboratory system and health laboratories.Goal:The goal of the project was to assess the national laboratory system and health laboratories of Mongolia.Methods and materials:Laboratory assessment tool (LAT) developed by WHO was used for the assessment of two areas: 1. strategic organization at the national level, and 2. specific technical capacities at the laboratories level. The national laboratory system was assessed using LAT System questionnaire with the participation of MOH officers, and the assessment of laboratories was conducted using LAT Facility questionnaire with the involvement of laboratories representing public and private sectors, all three levels of urban and rural health care organizations, and clinical and public health areas of laboratory services. Results: The strongest areas of the national laboratory system at the policy and regulatory level were “Coordination and management” and “Laboratory information system”. The weaker (below 75%) areas were “Structure and organizations”, “Regulations”, “Infrastructure” and “Human resources”. The insufficient infrastructure score was due to the lack of financing. The main problems detected in the area of Human resources were insufficient financial and organizational support of continuous education of laboratory workers, shortage of trained personnel and incomplete national registration system of laboratory professionals.The results of the laboratory capacities showed that the assessed laboratories were strong in “Data and information management”, “Specimen collection and handling” and “Consumables and reagents”. The testing performance of most laboratories was excellent but the external quality assurance was not available in some test disciplines. The weaker areas of the laboratories were “Facilities”, “Public health functions” and “Biorisk management”. The module “Organization and management” showed lower score mainly due to insufficient budget. The same was with “Facilities”. Although the general safety management of laboratories was very good, the biosafety component was not incorporated in it.Conclusions and recommendations:1.A national regulatory body needs to be established for the registration of all laboratories and laboratory professional staff.2.Each laboratory should formally designate an appropriately trained Quality manager, 3.Set-up a formal professional development/ continuous education system for laboratory professionals. 4.Develop biosafety policy and implementation plan.5.Establish a comprehensive national laboratory information management system (LIMS).