Guidelines and mindlines: why do clinical staff over-diagnose malaria in Tanzania? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Malaria over-diagnosis in Africa is widespread and costly both financially and in terms of morbidity and mortality from missed diagnoses. An understanding of the reasons behind malaria over-diagnosis is urgently needed to inform strategies for better targeting of antimalarials. METHODS: In an ethnographic study of clinical practice in two hospitals in Tanzania, 2,082 patient consultations with 34 clinicians were observed over a period of three months at each hospital. All clinicians were also interviewed individually as well as being observed during routine working activities with colleagues. Interviews with five tutors and 10 clinical officer students at a nearby clinical officer training college were subsequently conducted. RESULTS: Four, primarily social, spheres of influence on malaria over-diagnosis were identified. Firstly, the influence of initial training within a context where the importance of malaria is strongly promoted. Secondly, the influence of peers, conforming to perceived expectations from colleagues. Thirdly, pressure to conform with perceived patient preferences. Lastly, quality of diagnostic support, involving resource management, motivation and supervision. Rather than following national guidelines for the diagnosis of febrile illness, clinician behaviour appeared to follow 'mindlines': shared rationales constructed from these different spheres of influence. Three mindlines were identified in this setting: malaria is easier to diagnose than alternative diseases; malaria is a more acceptable diagnosis; and missing malaria is indefensible. These mindlines were apparent during the training stages as well as throughout clinical careers. CONCLUSION: Clinicians were found to follow mindlines as well as or rather than guidelines, which incorporated multiple social influences operating in the immediate and the wider context of decision making. Interventions to move mindlines closer to guidelines need to take the variety of social influences into account

A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737]

BACKGROUND: Accreditation has become ubiquitous across the international health care landscape. Award of full accreditation status in health care is viewed, as it is in other sectors, as a valid indicator of high quality organisational performance. However, few studies have empirically demonstrated this assertion. The value of accreditation, therefore, remains uncertain, and this persists as a central legitimacy problem for accreditation providers, policymakers and researchers. The question arises as to how best to research the validity, impact and value of accreditation processes in health care. Most health care organisations participate in some sort of accreditation process and thus it is not possible to study its merits using a randomised controlled strategy. Further, tools and processes for accreditation and organisational performance are multifaceted. METHODS/DESIGN: To understand the relationship between them a multi-method research approach is required which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data. The generic nature of accreditation standard development and inspection within different sectors enhances the extent to which the findings of in-depth study of accreditation process in one industry can be generalised to other industries. This paper presents a research design which comprises a prospective, multi-method, multi-level, multi-disciplinary approach to assess the validity, impact and value of accreditation. DISCUSSION: The accreditation program which assesses over 1,000 health services in Australia is used as an exemplar for testing this design. The paper proposes this design as a framework suitable for application to future international research into accreditation. Our aim is to stimulate debate on the role of accreditation and how to research it.Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna Westbrook, Marjorie Pawsey, David Greenfield, Justine Naylor, Rick Iedema, Bill Runciman, Sally Redman, Christine Jorm, Maureen Robinson, Sally Nathan and Robert Gibber

A national hospital-based survey of snakes responsible for bites in Thailand.

Snakes which had been killed and brought to hospital with the patients they had bitten were collected in 80 district and provincial hospitals throughout 67 provinces in Thailand in order to establish the geographical distribution and relative medical importance of the venomous species. Of the 1631 snakes collected, 1145 were venomous: Malayan pit vipers (Calloselasma rhodostoma), green pit vipers (Trimeresurus albolabris) and Russell's vipers (Daboia russelii) were the most numerous, while T. albolabris, C. rhodostoma and spitting cobras ('Naja atra') were the most widely distributed. In 22 cases, non-venomous species were mistaken for venomous ones and antivenom was used unnecessarily. The Malayan krait (Bungarus candidus) was confused with B. fasciatus in 5 cases and B. fasciatus antivenom was used inappropriately. The study extended the known ranges of most of the medically-important venomous species in Thailand. Correct identification of venomous snakes is especially important in Thailand because the locally-produced antivenoms are monospecific. The technique of hospital-based collection, labelling and preservation of dead snakes brought by bitten patients is recommended when rapid assessment of a country's medically important herpetofauna is required