Search

The premise of health as a human right in Latin America has been challenged by health system fragmentation, quality gaps, a growing burden of chronic disease, sociopolitical upheaval, and the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterised inequities in health system quality in Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. We did a cross-sectional telephone survey with up to 1250 adults in each country. We created binary outcomes in coverage, user experience, system competence, and confidence in the system and calculated the slope index of inequality by income and education. Although access to care was high, only a third of respondents reported having a high-quality source of care and 25% of those with mental health needs had those needs met. Two-thirds of adults were able to access relevant preventive care and 42% of older adults were screened for cardiovascular disease. Telehealth access, communication and autonomy in most recent visit, reasonable waiting times, and receiving preventive health checks showed inequalities favouring people with a high income. In Uruguay, inequality between government and social security services explained a substantial proportion of disparities in preventive health access. In other study countries, inequalities were also substantial within government and social security subsectors. Essential health system functions are unequal in these four Latin American countries.

A correction to the article "Development of physical activity and food built environment quality indicators for chronic diseases in Argentina" by Mariana Seijo and colleagues which appeared in the 2020 issue is presented.

Background and Aims: Healthcare provision to distinct social groups in Latin America contributes to inequities. Individuals make active choices by bypassing their coverage and intended healthcare source. After the pandemic, we sought to characterize bypassing behaviors and quantify their effects on access to essential services., Methods: Cross-sectional data from a population-based telephone survey in Peru and Uruguay were analyzed. Participants were selected by random digit dialing. Outcomes were defined as access to preventive screenings and satisfaction of emerging health needs. Bypassing by level was defined as when participants went around primary care for the usual source of care or last preventive visit; bypassing by coverage when care was sought outside of public coverage or social security. Sociodemographic characteristics were included, and the adjusted average treatment effect was calculated., Results: Data from 1,255 participants in Peru and 1,237 participants in Uruguay were analyzed. Bypassing behaviors by level (32% Peru; 60% Uruguay) and coverage (29% Peru; 21% Uruguay) were more prevalent in more privileged groups, especially in Peru. System competence was low overall and varied by bypassing mode, especially in Peru. In the adjusted analysis, statistically significant differences were found in bypassing by coverage in Peru (-8% difference in unmet health needs) and by level in Uruguay (5% more unmet needs)., Conclusion: Provision of essential preventive services was insufficient in both countries. In Peru, bypassing could serve as a proxy measure of inequities. Reminders of preventive services could be offered to bypassers of primary care. Profound health system reforms are needed to ensure equitable access to essential services., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no personal conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is limited evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programmes in less-resourced settings. This study aimed to improve the quality of antibacterial prescriptions by mitigating overuse and promoting the use of narrow-spectrum agents in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country., Methods: We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine Argentine ICUs over 11 months with a 16-week baseline period (BP) and a 32-week implementation period (IP). Our intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training., Results: We included 912 patients, 357 in BP and 555 in IP. The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (95% CI: 12 to 21) vs 15 (95% CI: 11 to 20), p=0.036), SOFA scores (6 (95% CI: 4 to 9) vs 5 (95% CI: 3 to 8), p=0.006), renal failure (41.6% vs 33.1%, p=0.009), sepsis (36.1% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and septic shock (40.0% vs 33.8%, p<0.001). The days of antibacterial therapy (DOT) were similar between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 28.1 (95% CI: -17.4 to 73.5), p=0.2405). There were no differences in the antibacterial defined daily dose (DDD) between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 43.9, (95% CI: -12.3 to 100.0), p=0.1413).The rate of antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture was higher during the IP (62.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001).The infection prevention control (IPC) assessment framework was increased in eight ICUs., Conclusion: Implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs in a middle-income country via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture results, but not on DOT or DDD. In addition, eight out of nine ICUs improved their IPC Assessment Framework Score., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The demand for healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic was excessive for less-resourced settings, with intensive care units (ICUs) taking the heaviest toll., Objective: The aim was to achieve adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) use in 90% of patient encounters, to reach 90% compliance with objectives of patient flow (OPF) and to provide emotional support tools to 90% of healthcare workers (HCWs)., Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series design in 14 ICUs in Argentina. We randomly selected adult critically ill patients admitted from July 2020 to July 2021 and active HCWs in the same period. We implemented a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) with a baseline phase (BP) and an intervention phase (IP). The QIC included learning sessions, periods of action and improvement cycles (plan-do-study-act) virtually coached by experts via platform web-based activities. The main study outcomes encompassed the following elements: proper utilisation of PPE, compliance with nine specific OPF using daily goal sheets through direct observations and utilisation of a web-based tool for tracking emotional well-being among HCWs., Results: We collected 7341 observations of PPE use (977 in BP and 6364 in IP) with an improvement in adequate use from 58.4% to 71.9% (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29, p<0.001). We observed 7428 patient encounters to evaluate compliance with 9 OPF (879 in BP and 6549 in IP) with an improvement in compliance from 53.9% to 67% (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32, p<0.001). The results showed that HCWs did not use the support tool for self-mental health evaluation as much as expected., Conclusion: A QIC was effective in improving healthcare processes and adequate PPE use, even in the context of a pandemic, indicating the possibility of expanding QIC networks nationwide to improve overall healthcare delivery. The limited reception of emotional support tools requires further analyses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)