Critical care capacity and care bundles on medical wards in Malawi: a cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: As low-income countries (LICs) shoulder a disproportionate share of the world's burden of critical illnesses, they must continue to build critical care capacity outside conventional intensive care units (ICUs) to address mortality and morbidity, including on general medical wards. A lack of data on the ability to treat critical illness, especially in non-ICU settings in LICs, hinders efforts to improve outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional Malawi Emergency and Critical Care (MECC) survey, administered from January to February 2020, to a random sample of nine public sector district hospitals and all four central hospitals in Malawi. This analysis describes inputs, systems, and barriers to care in district hospitals compared to central hospital medical wards, including if any medical wards fit the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM) definition of a level 1 ICU. We grouped items into essential care bundles for service readiness compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: From the 13 hospitals, we analysed data from 39 medical ward staff members through staffing, infrastructure, equipment, and systems domains. No medical wards met the WFSICCM definition of level 1 ICU. The most common barriers in district hospital medical wards compared to central hospital wards were stock-outs (29%, Cl: 21% to 44% vs 6%, Cl: 0% to 13%) and personnel shortages (40%, Cl: 24% to 67% vs 29%, Cl: 16% to 52%) but central hospital wards reported a higher proportion of training barriers (68%, Cl: 52% to 73% vs 45%, Cl: 29% to 60%). No differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Despite current gaps in resources to consistently care for critically ill patients in medical wards, this study shows that with modest inputs, the provision of simple life-saving critical care is within reach. Required inputs for care provision can be informed from this study.

Pediatric lymphoma patients in Malawi present with poor health-related quality of life at diagnosis and improve throughout treatment and follow-up across all Pediatric PROMIS-25 domains.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reportedoutcomes (PROs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly important components of cancer care and research that are infrequently used in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODS: We administered the Chichewa Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pediatric (PROMIS)-25 at diagnosis, active treatment, and follow-up among pediatric lymphoma patients in Lilongwe, Malawi. Mean scores were calculated for the six PROMIS-25 HRQoL domains (Mobility, Anxiety, Depressive Symptoms, Fatigue, Peer Relationships, Pain Interference). Differences in HRQoL throughout treatment were compared using the minimally important difference (MID) and an ANOVA analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox hazard ratios for mortality are reported. RESULTS: Seventy-five children completed PROMIS-25 surveys at diagnosis, 35 (47%) during active treatment, and 24 (32%) at follow-up. The majority of patients died (n = 37, 49%) or were lost to follow-up (n = 6, 8%). Most (n = 51, 68%) were male, median age was 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-12), 48/73 (66%) presented with advanced stage III/IV, 61 (81%) were diagnosed with Burkitt lymphoma and 14 (19%) Hodgkin lymphoma. At diagnosis, HRQoL was poor across all domains, except for Peer Relationships. Improvements in HRQoL during active treatment and follow-up exceeded the MID. On exploratory analysis, fair-poor PROMIS Mobility <40 and severe Pain Intensity = 10 at diagnosis were associated with increased mortality risk and worse survival, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric lymphoma patients in Malawi present with poor HRQoL that improves throughout treatment and survivorship. Baseline PROMIS scores may provide important prognostic information. PROs offer an opportunity to include patient voices and prioritize holistic patient-centered care in low-resource settings.

Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic wounds are one of the common reasons why people present to the emergency department. Primary closure has traditionally been reserved for traumatic wounds presenting within six hours of injury and considered 'clean' by the attending surgeon, with the rest undergoing delayed primary closure as a means of controlling wound infection. Primary closure has the potential benefit of rapid wound healing but poses the potential threat of increased wound infection. There is currently no evidence to guide clinical decision-making on the best timing for closure of traumatic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect on time to healing of primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. To explore the adverse effects of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2013, for this first update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing primary closure with delayed closure of non bite traumatic wounds. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated the results of the searches against the inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: Since no studies met the inclusion criteria, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no systematic evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the timing for closure of traumatic wounds. There is a need for robust research to investigate the effect of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours of injury.

Primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds within 24 hours post injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic wounds are one of the common reasons why people present to the emergency department. Primary closure has traditionally been reserved for traumatic wounds presenting within six hours of injury and considered 'clean' by the attending surgeon, with the rest undergoing delayed primary closure as a means of controlling wound infection. Primary closure has the potential benefit of rapid wound healing but poses the potential threat of increased wound infection. There is currently no evidence to guide clinical decision-making on the best timing for closure of traumatic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect on time to healing of primary closure versus delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. To explore the adverse effects of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours post injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 14 July 2011); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 13, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 27); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 14 July 2011). There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing primary closure with delayed closure of non bite traumatic wounds. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated the results of the searches against the inclusion criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: Since no studies met the inclusion criteria, neither a meta-analysis nor a narrative description of studies was possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no systematic evidence to guide clinical decision-making regarding the timing for closure of traumatic wounds. There is a need for robust research to investigate the effect of primary closure compared with delayed closure for non bite traumatic wounds presenting within 24 hours of injury.