Search

BackgroundOne of the biggest barriers to accessing safe surgical and anesthetic care is lack of trained providers. Uganda has one of the largest deficits in anesthesia providers in the world, and though they are increasing in number, they remain concentrated in the capital city. Salary is an oft-cited barrier to rural job choice, yet the size and sources of anesthesia provider incomes are unclear, and so the potential income loss from taking a rural job is unknown. Additionally, while salary augmentation is a common policy proposal to increase rural job uptake, the relative importance of non-monetary job factors in job choice is also unknown.MethodsA survey on income sources and magnitude, and a Discrete Choice Experiment examining the relative importance of monetary and non-monetary factors in job choice, was administered to 37 and 47 physician anesthesiologists in Uganda, between May-June 2019.ResultsNo providers worked only at government jobs. Providers earned most of their total income from a non-government job (50% of income, 23% of working hours), but worked more hours at their government job (36% of income, and 44% of working hours). Providers felt the most important job attributes were the quality of the facility and scope of practice they could provide, and the presence of a colleague (33% and 32% overall relative importance). These were more important than salary and living conditions (14% and 12% importance).ConclusionsNo providers accepted the salary from a government job alone, which was always augmented by other work. However, few providers worked only nongovernment jobs. Non-monetary incentives are powerful influencers of job preference, and may be leveraged as policy options to attract providers. Salary continues to be an important driver of job choice, and jobs with fewer income generating opportunities (e.g. private work in rural areas) are likely to need salary augmentation to attract providers.

BackgroundGlobally, 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

BackgroundSub-Saharan Africa has a great burden of critical illness with limited health care resources. We evaluated the feasibility and utility of the modified Sequential Organ Function Assessment (mSOFA) score in assessing morbidity and mortality in the National Referral Hospital's intensive care unit (ICU) for one year.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational cohort study on patients above 12 years of age admitted to the ICU at Mulago Hospital (Kampala, Uganda). All SOFA scores were determined at admission and at 48 h. We modified the SOFA score by replacing the PaO2/FiO2 ratio with SPO2/FiO2. The primary outcome was ICU mortality.ResultsThis ICU cohort of 118 patients had a mean age of 37 years and an ICU mortality rate of 46.6%. Non-survivors had higher initial (7.7 SD 3.8 vs. 5.5 SD 3.3; p = 0.007), mean (8.1 SD 3.9 vs 4.7 SD 2.6; p

Purpose: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low- or middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1-5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff well-being, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes.Results: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation.Conclusion: This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is associated with high mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. This is at least in part due to critical care-related resource constraints including limited access to invasive mechanical ventilation and/or highly skilled acute care workers. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula (HFNC) may prove useful to reduce intubation, and therefore, improve survival outcomes among critically ill patients, particularly in resource-limited settings, but data in such settings are lacking. The aim of this study is to determine whether CPAP or HFNC as compared with standard oxygen therapy, could reduce mortality among adults presenting with AHRF in a resource-limited setting., Methods: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled, stepped wedge trial, in which patients presenting with AHRF in Uganda will be randomly assigned to standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, HFNC oxygen or CPAP. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients with criteria for intubation at day 7, the number of patients intubated at day 28, ventilator-free days at day 28 and tolerance of each respiratory support., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has obtained ethical approval from the Research and Ethics Committee, School of Biomedical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University as well as the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT04693403., Protocol Version: 8 September 2023; version 5., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AMD reports fees (lectures and research) from Fisher and Payckel. EA reports personal fees from GBT, personal fees from Hemanext, both unrelated to the present study., (© 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.)

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes., Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam., Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2023 The Collaboration for Research, Implementation and Training in Critical Care in Asia and Africa (CCAA) et al.)

Statement: Simulation is relatively new in many low-income countries. We describe the challenges encountered, solutions deployed, and the costs incurred while establishing two simulation centers in Uganda. The challenges we experienced included equipment costs, difficulty in procurement, lack of context-appropriate curricula, unreliable power, limited local teaching capacity, and lack of coordination among user groups. Solutions we deployed included improvisation of equipment, customization of low-cost simulation software, creation of context-specific curricula, local administrative support, and creation of a simulation fellowship opportunity for local instructors. Total costs for simulation setups ranged from US $165 to $17,000. For centers in low-income countries trying to establish simulation programs, our experience suggests that careful selection of context-appropriate equipment and curricula, engagement with local and international collaborators, and early emphasis to increase local teaching capacity are essential. Further studies are needed to identify the most cost-effective levels of technological complexity for simulation in similar resource-constrained settings.