Search

In 2016 WHO launched the priority assistive products list (APL) consisting of 50 products and recommended that using this as a reference, countries should develop their own contextually relevant national APLs. This paper describes the development of Malawi's APL. Two hundred and ninety-six persons with disabilities participated in a rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) survey. Six focus group discussions (FGDs) with people with various types of disabilities were conducted. The rATA questionnaire and FGDs collected data on assistive products (APs) participants used, APs they needed and the challenges they experienced. Data collection was done in six districts spread across the three regions in Malawi. All age groups were included in the survey. Persons with disabilities aged less than 18 participated but went with their guardians. All persons who participated in this study provided consent. Survey and FGDs results were presented at an APL consensus meeting with policymakers, service providers, disabled peoples' organizations and development partners in the disability sector. Based on the results and further discussions, a consensus was reached on the priority APs for Malawi. More than a third of respondents used wheelchairs (32%), followed by auxiliary crutches (25%), walking sticks (13%), reading glasses (11%), prosthesis (10%), elbow crutches (9%) and orthosis (8%). There is also a high demand for products such as pull-up underwear (incontinence products) (79%), hearing aids (70%), reading glasses (59%) and diapers (63%). After intensive discussions during a consensus meeting, an agreement was reached on the 22 priority APs for Malawi. There is a wide range of APs being used by people with different functional limitations in Malawi. There is also a demand for APs that are not readily available. When developing an APL, the list should include products in use, those in demand, and those recommended by service providers. Following the development of the priority assistive products list (APL) by WHO, member states should develop their own contextually based APL. The development of the APL should be based on research evidence. All key stakeholders including persons with disabilities and other functional limitations, government, and development partners should participate in this process. The APL should be part of the national health system or community services. The Department of Disability and Elderly Affairs in the Ministry of Gender, Community Development, being the Government of Malawi line ministry coordinating disability issues participated actively in this study including inviting participants in the stakeholders' validation workshop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: High-quality end-of-life care involves addressing patients' physical, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual needs. Although the measurement of the quality of care associated with dying and death is an important component of health care, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of patients in hospital settings. Our purpose was to develop a systematic appraisal framework (QualDeath) for reviewing the quality of dying and death for patients with advanced cancer. The objectives were to: (1) explore the evidence regarding existing tools and processes related to appraisal of end-of-life care; (2) examine existing practices related to appraisal of quality of dying and death in hospital settings; and (3) develop QualDeath with consideration of potential acceptability and feasibility factors. Methods: A co-design multiple methods approach was used. For objective 1, a rapid literature review was undertaken; for objective 2 we carried out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in four major teaching hospitals; and for objective 3 we interviewed key stakeholders and held workshops with the project team to reach consensus. Results: We developed QualDeath, a framework to assist hospital administrators and clinicians to systematically and retrospectively review the quality of dying and death for patients expected to die from advanced cancer. It offers four levels of potential implementation for hospitals to select from and incorporates medical record review, multidisciplinary meetings, quality of end-of-life care surveys and bereavement interviews with family carers. Conclusions: The QualDeath framework provides hospitals with recommendations to formalise processes to evaluate end-of-life care. Although QualDeath was underpinned by several research methods, further research is needed to rigorously explore its impact and test its feasibility. What is known about the topic? The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care explicitly directs Australian hospitals and healthcare services to review the quality of end-of-life care provided against planned goals of care. However, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of cancer patients in hospital settings. What does this paper add? QualDeath provides a framework that enables hospitals to implement a systematic approach to appraising the quality of dying and death for cancer patients. What are the implications for practitioners? QualDeath is underpinned by the principle that hospital clinicians should be evaluating the quality of care provided for every patient who dies. This provides an opportunity for reflecting on and improving the quality of care provided, as well as acknowledging examples of high-quality end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]