Estimating health workforce needs for antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings

BACKGROUND: Efforts to increase access to life-saving treatment, including antiretroviral therapy (ART), for people living with HIV/AIDS in resource-limited settings has been the growing focus of international efforts. One of the greatest challenges to scaling up will be the limited supply of adequately trained human resources for health, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other skilled providers. As national treatment programmes are planned, better estimates of human resource needs and improved approaches to assessing the impact of different staffing models are critically needed. However there have been few systematic assessments of staffing patterns in existing programmes or of the estimates being used in planning larger programmes. METHODS: We reviewed the published literature and selected plans and scaling-up proposals, interviewed experts and collected data on staffing patterns at existing treatment sites through a structured survey and site visits. RESULTS: We found a wide range of staffing patterns and patient-provider ratios in existing and planned treatment programmes. Many factors influenced health workforce needs, including task assignments, delivery models, other staff responsibilities and programme size. Overall, the number of health care workers required to provide ART to 1000 patients included 1–2 physicians, 2–7 nurses, <1 to 3 pharmacy staff, and a much wider range of counsellors and treatment supporters. We estimate from these data that the equivalent of 20 000 to 100 000 physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other core clinical staff will be needed to meet the WHO target of treating 3 million people by the end of 2005. The total number of staff, including counsellors, administrators and other cadres, could be substantially higher. DISCUSSION: These data are consistent with other estimates of human resource requirements for antiretroviral therapy, but highlight the considerable variability of current staffing models and the importance of a broad range of factors in determining personnel needs. Few outcome or cost data are currently available to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of different staffing models, and it will be important to develop improved methods for gathering this information as treatment programmes are scaled up

The failure of routine rapid HIV testing: a case study of improving low sensitivity in the field

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The rapid HIV antibody test is the diagnostic tool of choice in low and middle-income countries. Previous evidence suggests that rapid HIV diagnostic tests may underperform in the field, failing to detect a substantial number of infections. A research study inadvertently discovered that a clinic rapid HIV testing process was failing to detect cases of established (high antibody titer) infection, exhibiting an estimated 68.7% sensitivity (95% CI [41.3%-89.0%]) over the course of the first three weeks of observation. The setting is a public service clinic that provides STI diagnosis and treatment in an impoverished, peri-urban community outside of Cape Town, South Africa.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The researchers and local health administrators collaborated to investigate the cause of the poor test performance and make necessary corrections. The clinic changed the brand of rapid test being used and later introduced quality improvement measures. Observations were made of the clinic staff as they administered rapid HIV tests to real patients. Estimated testing sensitivity was calculated as the number of rapid HIV test positive individuals detected by the clinic divided by this number plus the number of PCR positive, highly reactive 3^rdgeneration ELISA patients identified among those who were rapid test negative at the clinic.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the period of five months after the clinic made the switch of rapid HIV tests, estimated sensitivity improved to 93.5% (95% CI [86.5%-97.6%]), during which time observations of counselors administering tests at the clinic found poor adherence to the recommended testing protocol. Quality improvement measures were implemented and estimated sensitivity rose to 95.1% (95% CI [83.5%-99.4%]) during the final two months of full observation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Poor testing procedure in the field can lead to exceedingly low levels of rapid HIV test sensitivity, making it imperative that stringent quality control measures are implemented where they do not already exist. Certain brands of rapid-testing kits may perform better than others when faced with sub-optimal use.</p