Search

Problem: In hospitals in rural, resource-limited settings, there is an acute need for simple, practical strategies to improve healthcare quality., Setting: A district hospital in remote western Nepal., Key Measures for Improvement: To provide a mechanism for systems-level reflection so that staff can identify targets for quality improvement in healthcare delivery. Strategies for change To develop a morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) quality improvement initiative that aims to facilitate structured analysis of patient care and identify barriers to providing quality care, which can subsequently be improved., Design: The authors designed an M&M involving clinical and non-clinical staff in conducting root-cause analyses of healthcare delivery at their hospital. Weekly conferences focus on seven domains of causal analysis: operations, supply chain, equipment, personnel, outreach, societal, and structural. Each conference focuses on assessing the care provided, and identifying ways in which services can be improved in the future., Effects of Change: Staff reception of the M&Ms was positive. In these M&Ms, staff identified problem areas in healthcare delivery and steps for improvement. Subsequently, changes were made in hospital workflow, supply procurement, and on-site training., Lessons Learnt: While widely practiced throughout the world, M&Ms typically do not involve both clinical and non-clinical staff members and do not take a systems-level approach. The authors' experience suggests that the adapted M&M conference is a simple, feasible tool for quality improvement in resource-limited settings. Senior managerial commitment is crucial to ensure successful implementation of M&Ms, given the challenging logistics of implementing these programmes in resource-limited health facilities.

Background: Although directly administered antiretroviral therapy (DAART) has demonstrated impressive biological benefits compared with self-administered therapy (SAT) among drug users, the persistence of DAART after transition to SAT has not been examined., Methods: We conducted a community-based, prospective, randomized controlled trial of 6 months of DAART compared with SAT. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects who achieved virological success at 6 months postintervention, defined as either a 1.0 log10 reduction from baseline or HIV-1 RNA <400 copies per milliliter. Secondary outcomes included the change from baseline in HIV-1 RNA and CD4 lymphocyte count., Results: Of the 53 subjects in the SAT arm and 88 subjects in the DAART arm, 52 and 82, respectively, provided blood samples at 6 months postintervention. The DAART (n = 88) and SAT (n = 53) arms did not differ on virological success (DAART 58.0% vs. SAT 56.6%, P = 0.64), mean reduction in log10 HIV-1 RNA (-0.79 vs. -0.31 log10 copies/mL, P = 0.53), or mean change in CD4 lymphocyte count (+60.2 vs. -15.4 cells/mL, P = 0.12). In the multivariate analysis, only high levels of social support significantly predicted virological success., Conclusions: This analysis, from the first randomized controlled trial of DAART among active drug users, failed to show the persistence of the DAART intervention at improving virological outcomes. Additional strategies are needed to ensure the on-treatment benefits persist following the cessation of DAART.

Background: Directly administered antiretroviral therapy (DAART) is an effective intervention that improves clinical outcomes among HIV-infected drug users. Its effects on antiretroviral drug resistance, however, are unknown., Methods: We conducted a community-based, prospective, randomized controlled trial of DAART compared with self-administered therapy (SAT). We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis among 115 subjects who provided serum samples for HIV genotypic resistance testing at baseline and at follow-up. The main outcomes measures included total genotypic sensitivity score, future drug options, number of new drug resistance mutations (DRMs), and number of new major International AIDS Society (IAS) mutations., Results: The adjusted probability of developing at least 1 new DRM did not differ between the 2 arms (SAT: 0.41 per person-year [PPY], DAART: 0.49 PPY; adjusted relative risk [RR] = 1.04; P = 0.90), nor did the number of new mutations (SAT: 0.76 PPY, DAART: 0.83 PPY; adjusted RR = 0.99; P = 0.99) or the probability of developing new major IAS new drug mutations (SAT: 0.30 PPY, DAART: 0.33 PPY; adjusted RR = 1.12; P = 0.78). On measures of GSS and FDO, the 2 arms also did not differ., Conclusion: In this trial, DAART provided on-treatment virologic benefit for HIV-infected drug users without affecting the rate of development of antiretroviral medication resistance.