Search

Abstract Objective This study aimed to assess health facilities’ readiness to provide safe surgical care during Ebola and COVID-19 era in Uganda and in the Eastern DR Congo. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in selected national, regional referral and general hospital facilities in Uganda and in the eastern part of DR Congo from 1st August 2020 to 30th October 2020. Data was analysed using Stata version 15. Results The participation rate was of 37.5 % (72/192) for both countries. None of the hospitals fulfilled the readiness criteria for safe surgical care provision in both countries. The mean bed capacity of participating health facilities (HF) was 184 in Eastern DR Congo and 274 in Uganda with an average surgical ward bed capacity of 22.3 % (41/184) and 20.4 % (56/274) respectively. The mean number of operating rooms was 2 and 3 in Eastern DR Congo and Uganda respectively. Nine hospitals (12.5 %) reported being able to test for Ebola and 25 (34.7 %) being able to test for COVID-19. Postponing of elective surgeries was reported by 10 (13.9) participating hospitals. Only 7 (9.7 %) hospitals reported having a specific operating room for suspect or confirmed cases of Ebola or COVID-19. Appropriate Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) was reported to be available in 60 (83.3 %) hospitals. Most of the staff had appropriate training on donning and doffing of PPE 40 (55.6 %). Specific teams and protocols for safe surgical care provision were reported to be present in 61 (84.7 %) and 56 (77.8 %) respectively in Uganda and Eastern DR Congo participating hospitals. Conclusions The lack of readiness to provide safe surgical care during Ebola and COVID-19 era across the participating hospitals in both countries indicate a need for strategies to enhance health facility supplies and readiness for safe surgical provision in resource-limited settings.

Aims: Kisangani is an area with intense malaria transmission and sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine resistance. Alternative antimalaria prophylaxis medication and protocols are needed, particularly with pregnant individuals. In this study, we compare the tolerance and effectiveness of mefloquine regimen as a split dose with a meal vs. sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine for the intermittent preventive treatment in pregnant individuals in Kisangani. Methods: This study was conducted from 15 May to 30 November 2019 as a single‐blind, randomized clinical trial comparing 2 regimens of intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy. The first regimen consisted of 4 doses of sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine, and the second of 2 doses of mefloquine taken as a split dose with meal. Results: The occurrence of major or minor side‐effects among patients treated with mefloquine and those treated with sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine were not statistically significant (major side effects: Fisher exact = 0.5014; minor side effects: P =.0961). Intermittent preventive treatment using mefloquine significantly reduced the risk of placental malaria (risk ratio [RR]: 0.4315, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2201–0.8460), maternal peripheral parasitaemia (RR: 0.4397, 95% CI: 0.2377–0.8132) and low birth weight (RR: 0.4708, 95% CI: 0.2455–0.9029). Conclusion: Splitting dose and intake with a meal increased mefloquine tolerability while keeping its efficacy higher compared to sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine. Intermittent preventive treatment during pregnancy using mefloquine reduces the risk of placental malaria, maternal peripheral parasitaemia and low birth weight, compared to sulfadoxine–pyrimethamine. Thus, mefloquine is a good alternative to intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue Médicale des Grands Lacs is the property of University of Goma, Department of Family Medicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)