Examining appropriate diagnosis and treatment of malaria: availability and use of rapid diagnostic tests and artemisinin-based combination therapy in public and private health facilities in south east Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) have been widely advocated by government and the international community as cost-effective tools for diagnosis and treatment of malaria. ACTs are now the first line treatment drug for malaria in Nigeria and RDTs have been introduced by the government to bridge the existing gaps in proper diagnosis. However, it is not known how readily available these RDTs and ACTs are in public and private health facilities and whether health workers are actually using them. Hence, this study investigated the levels of availability and use of RDTs and ACTs in these facilities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was undertaken in Enugu state, southeast Nigeria in March 2009. Data was collected from heads of 74 public and private health facilities on the availability and use of RDTs and ACTs. Also, the availability of RDTs and the types of ACTs that were available in the facilities were documented.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Only 31.1% of the health facilities used RDTs to diagnose malaria. The majority used the syndromic approach. However, 61.1% of healthcare providers were aware of RDTs. RDTs were available in 53.3% of the facilities. Public health facilities and health facilities in the urban areas were using RDTs more and these were mainly bought from pharmacy shops and supplied by NGOs. The main reasons given for non use are unreliability of RDTs, supply issues, costs, preference for other methods of diagnosis and providers' ignorance. ACTs were the drug of choice for most public health facilities and the drugs were readily available in these facilities.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although many providers were knowledgeable about RDTs, not many facilities used it. ACTS were readily available and used in public but not private health facilities. However, the reported use of ACTs with limited proper diagnosis implies that there could be high incidence of inappropriate case management of malaria which can also increase the economic burden of illnesses. Government and donors should ensure constant availability of RDTs in both public and private facilities, so that every treatment with ACTs is accompanied with proper diagnosis.</p

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p&lt;0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p&lt;0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised