Suchergebnisse

For 2010, the annual incidence of breast cancer is estimated to increase from now 1.15 Mio to 1.5 Mio new cases per year. The increase is mainly seen in low and middle income countries. Resource limitations in means of finance, personnel, infrastructure, and by political instability are tremendous. Currently, little attention is paid to breast care in low-resource settings due to other health priorities. However, with increasing life expectancy and reduction of mortality due to infectious diseases, more people are confronted with non-communicable diseases, and the topic of cancer in developing countries will emerge more and more. Specific guidelines for breast cancer were given by the Global Breast Health Initiative differentiating according to available resources in different settings. From awareness in public and health care facilities to obtaining the diagnosis, deciding on strategies of treatment, and putting strategies into practice – all these obstacles differ substantially in developed and developing countries. Further research is essential to meet the challenge of breast cancer worldwide in the coming years.

BACKGROUND: Maternal deaths reviews are proposed as one strategy to address high maternal mortality in low and middle-income countries, including Tanzania. Review of maternal deaths relies on comprehensive documentation of medical records that can reveal the sequence of events leading to death. The World Health Organization's and the Tanzanian Maternal Death and Surveillance (MDSR) system propose the use of narrative summaries during maternal death reviews for discussing the case to categorize causes of death, identify gaps in care and recommend action plans to prevent deaths. Suggested action plans are recommended to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time bound (SMART). To identify gaps in documenting information and developing recommendations, comprehensiveness of written narrative summaries and action plans were assessed. METHODS: A total of 76 facility maternal deaths that occurred in two regions in Southern Tanzania in 2018 were included for analysis. Using a prepared checklist from Tanzania 2015 MDSR guideline, we assessed comprehensiveness by presence or absence of items in four domains, each with several attributes. These were socio-demographic characteristics, antenatal care, referral information and events that occurred after admission. Less than 75% completeness of attributes in all domains was considered poor while 95% and above were good/comprehensive. Action plans were assessed by application of SMART criteria and according to the place of planned implementation (community, facility or higher level of health system). RESULTS: Almost half of narrative summaries (49%) scored poor, and only 1% scored good/comprehensive. Summaries missed key information such as demographic characteristics, time between diagnosis of complication and commencing treatment (65%), investigation results (47%), summary of case evolution (51%) and referral information (47%). A total of 285 action points were analysed. Most action points, 242(85%), recommended strategies to be implemented at health facilities and were mostly about service delivery, 120(42%). Only 42% (32/76) of the action points were deemed to be SMART. CONCLUSIONS: Abstraction of information to prepare narrative summaries used in the MDSR system is inadequately done. Most recommendations were unspecific with a focus on improving quality of care in health facilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty.Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty-all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a 'patchwork quilt', for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK's academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic-the main feature during the first wave-was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis in which governments had to act in a situation of rapid change and substantial uncertainty. The governments of Germany, Sweden and the UK have taken different paths allowing learning for future pandemic preparedness. To help inform discussions on preparedness, inspired by resilience frameworks, this paper reviews governance structures, and the role of science and the media in the COVID-19 response of Germany, Sweden and the UK in 2020. We mapped legitimacy, interdependence, knowledge generation and the capacity to deal with uncertainty. Our analysis revealed stark differences which were linked to pre-existing governing structures, the traditional role of academia, experience of crisis management and the communication of uncertainty—all of which impacted on how much people trusted their government. Germany leveraged diversity and inclusiveness, a 'patchwork quilt', for which it was heavily criticised during the second wave. The Swedish approach avoided plurality and largely excluded academia, while in the UK's academia played an important role in knowledge generation and in forcing the government to review its strategies. However, the vivant debate left the public with confusing and rapidly changing public health messages. Uncertainty and the lack of evidence on how best to manage the COVID-19 pandemic—the main feature during the first wave—was only communicated explicitly in Germany. All country governments lost trust of their populations during the epidemic due to a mix of communication and transparency failures, and increased questioning of government legitimacy and technical capacity by the public.

BACKGROUND: The Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.

BACKGROUND: The collaborative quality improvement approach proposed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has the potential to improve coverage of evidence-based maternal and newborn health practices. The Safe Care, Saving Lives initiative supported the implementation of 20 evidence-based maternal and newborn care practices, targeting labour wards and neonatal care units in 85 public and private hospitals in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. OBJECTIVE: We present a protocol for the evaluation of this programme which aims to (a) estimate the effect of the initiative on evidence-based care practices and mortality; (b) evaluate the mechanisms leading to changes in adherence to evidence-based practices, and their relationship with contextual factors; (c) explore the feasibility of scaling-up the approach. METHODS: The mixed-method evaluation is based on a plausibility design nested within a phased implementation. The 29 non-randomly selected hospitals comprising wave II of the programme were compared to the 31 remaining hospitals where the quality improvement approach started later. We assessed mortality and adherence to evidence-based practices at baseline and endline using abstraction of registers, checklists, observations and interviews in intervention and comparison hospitals. We also explored the mechanisms and drivers of change in adherence to evidence-based practices. Qualitative methods investigated the mechanisms of change in purposefully selected case study hospitals. A readiness assessment complemented the analysis of what works and why. We used a difference-in-difference approach to estimate the effects of the intervention on mortality and coverage. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data. DISCUSSION: This is the first quality improvement collaborative targeting neonatal health in secondary and tertiary hospitals in a middle-income country linked to a government health insurance scheme. Our process evaluation is theory driven and will refine hypotheses about how this quality improvement approach contributes to institutionalization of evidence-based practices.

OBJECTIVE: Over time, we have seen a major evolution of measurement initiatives, indicators and methods, such that today a wide range of maternal and perinatal indicators are monitored and new indicators are under development. Monitoring global progress in maternal and newborn health outcomes and development has been dominated in recent decades by efforts to set, measure and achieve global goals and targets: the Millennium Development Goals followed by the Sustainable Development Goals. This paper aims to review, reflect and learn on accelerated progress towards global goals and events, including universal health coverage, and better tracking of maternal and newborn health outcomes. METHODS: We searched for literature of key events and global initiatives over recent decades related to maternal and newborn health. The searches were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and the World Health Organization Global Index Medicus. RESULTS: This paper describes global key events and initiatives over recent decades showing how maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, and stillbirths, have been viewed, when they have achieved higher priority on the global agenda, and how they have been measured, monitored and reported. Despite substantial improvements, the enormous maternal and newborn health disparities that persist within and between countries indicate the urgent need to renew the focus on reducing inequities. CONCLUSION: The review has featured the long story of the progress in monitoring improving maternal and newborn health outcomes, but has also underlined current gaps and significant inequities. The many global initiatives described in this paper have highlighted the magnitude of the problems and have built the political momentum over the years for effectively addressing maternal and newborn health and well‐being, with particular focus on improved measurement and monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Over time, we have seen a major evolution of measurement initiatives, indicators and methods, such that today a wide range of maternal and perinatal indicators are monitored and new indicators are under development. Monitoring global progress in maternal and newborn health outcomes and development has been dominated in recent decades by efforts to set, measure and achieve global goals and targets: the Millennium Development Goals followed by the Sustainable Development Goals. This paper aims to review, reflect and learn on accelerated progress towards global goals and events, including universal health coverage, and better tracking of maternal and newborn health outcomes. METHODS: We searched for literature of key events and global initiatives over recent decades related to maternal and newborn health. The searches were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and the World Health Organization Global Index Medicus. RESULTS: This paper describes global key events and initiatives over recent decades showing how maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, and stillbirths, have been viewed, when they have achieved higher priority on the global agenda, and how they have been measured, monitored and reported. Despite substantial improvements, the enormous maternal and newborn health disparities that persist within and between countries indicate the urgent need to renew the focus on reducing inequities. CONCLUSION: The review has featured the long story of the progress in monitoring improving maternal and newborn health outcomes, but has also underlined current gaps and significant inequities. The many global initiatives described in this paper have highlighted the magnitude of the problems and have built the political momentum over the years for effectively addressing maternal and newborn health and well-being, with particular focus on improved measurement and monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The lack of high quality timely data for evidence-informed decision making at the district level presents a challenge to improving maternal and newborn survival in low income settings. To address this problem, the EQUIP project (Expanded Quality Management using Information Power) implemented a continuous household and health facility survey for continuous feedback of data in two districts each in Tanzania and Uganda as part of a quality improvement innovation for mothers and newborns. METHODS: Within EQUIP, continuous survey data were used for quality improvement (intervention districts) and for effect evaluation (intervention and comparison districts). Over 30 months of intervention (November 2011 to April 2014), EQUIP conducted continuous cross-sectional household and health facility surveys using 24 independent probability samples of household clusters to represent each district each month, and repeat censuses of all government health facilities. Using repeat samples in this way allowed data to be aggregated at six four-monthly intervals to track progress over time for evaluation, and for continuous feedback to quality improvement teams in intervention districts.In both countries, one continuous survey team of eight people was employed to complete approximately 7,200 household and 200 facility interviews in year one. Data were collected using personal digital assistants. After every four months, routine tabulations of indicators were produced and synthesized to report cards for use by the quality improvement teams. RESULTS: The first 12 months were implemented as planned. Completion of household interviews was 96% in Tanzania and 91% in Uganda. Indicators across the continuum of care were tabulated every four months, results discussed by quality improvement teams, and report cards generated to support their work. CONCLUSIONS: The EQUIP continuous surveys were feasible to implement as a method to continuously generate and report on demand and supply side indicators for maternal and newborn health; they have potential to be expanded to include other health topics. Documenting the design and implementation of a continuous data collection and feedback mechanism for prospective description, quality improvement, and evaluation in a low-income setting potentially represents a new paradigm that places equal weight on data systems for course correction, as well as evaluation.

Background Globally, critical illness results in millions of deaths every year. Although many of these deaths are potentially preventable, the basic, life-saving care of critically ill patients are often overlooked in health systems. Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) has been devised as the care that should be provided to all critically ill patients in all hospitals in the world. EECC includes the effective care of low cost and low complexity for the identification and treatment of critically ill patients across all medical specialties. This study aimed to specify the content of EECC and additionally, given the surge of critical illness in the ongoing pandemic, the essential diagnosis-specific care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods In a Delphi process, consensus (>90% agreement) was sought from a diverse panel of global clinical experts. The panel iteratively rated proposed treatments and actions based on previous guidelines and the WHO/ICRC's Basic Emergency Care. The output from the Delphi was adapted iteratively with specialist reviewers into a coherent and feasible package of clinical processes plus a list of hospital readiness requirements. Results The 269 experts in the Delphi panel had clinical experience in different acute medical specialties from 59 countries and from all resource settings. The agreed EECC package contains 40 clinical processes and 67 requirements, plus additions specific for COVID-19. Conclusion The study has specified the content of care that should be provided to all critically ill patients. Implementing EECC could be an effective strategy for policy makers to reduce preventable deaths worldwide.