Forest plot for the outcome of mortality comparing colloids and crystalloids.

<p>Forest plot for the outcome of mortality comparing colloids and crystalloids.</p

Characteristics of Errors Reported.

<p>*An example of an error discovered after discharge from care is that of a retained surgical sponge causing a post operative infection that presents after discharge from hospital or a medication error that is recognised after an outpatient has been discharged from the TB programme.</p><p>** An example of an error involving multiple cadres of staff is a failure to monitor a patient, resulted in delayed recognition of sepsis where the responsibility is with both the nursing staff and the physicians.</p><p>Characteristics of Errors Reported.</p

Study inclusions and exclusions.

<p>Study inclusions and exclusions.</p

Forest plot for the outcome of mortality comparing no bolus and bolus.

<p>Forest plot for the outcome of mortality comparing no bolus and bolus.</p

HIV Diagnostic Algorithm using the Orgenics Immunocomb Combfirm® confirmatory test.

<p>HIV Diagnostic Algorithm using the Orgenics Immunocomb Combfirm® confirmatory test.</p

Analysis of double-positive rapid test results by enzyme immunoassay (OIC-HIV) and western blot (WB) banding pattern

<p>D+^s =  Determine HIV-1/2® strong-positive. D+^w =  Determine HIV-1/2® weak-positive. U+^s =  UniGold HIV® strong-positive. U+^w =  UniGold HIV® weak-positive. POS = positive. NEG =  negative. IND =  indeterminate.</p>1<p>The discrepancy between banding patterns in OIC-HIV and WB may have been caused by either laboratory/clerical error, or different patterns of cross-reactivity between the two tests.</p>2<p>Using Centers for Disease Control criteria <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004351#pone.0004351-Centers1" target="_blank">[13]</a>.</p>3<p>Using the manufacturer's interpretation.</p

HIV Testing flowchart.

<p>HIV Testing flowchart.</p

Associations of the individual rating scales and independent variables.

<p>Associations of the individual rating scales and independent variables.</p

Efficacy in monitoring change of two client rating scales used to assess counselling outcome.

<p>Histogram shows difference in the changes in the complaint and functioning rating scales. Rating scale difference is defined as (complaint rating at client’s last visit–complaint rating at the first visit)–(functioning rating at the client’s last visit–functioning rating at the first visit).</p

Association of the more favourable counsellor-assessed outcomes with larger improvements in the client rating scales.

<p>Box-plot shows the distribution of change in rating scales (complaint, functioning) for each status (increased, same, improved, resolved) at client’s last visit as assessed by the counsellor (n = 6,988).</p