Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Strengthening Antimicrobial Resistance Diagnostic Capacity in Rural Rwanda: A Feasibility Assessment.

Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global public health threat. Worse still, there is a paucity of data from low- and middle-income countries to inform rational antibiotic use. Objective: Assess the feasibility of setting up microbiology capacity for AMR testing and estimate the cost of setting up microbiology testing capacity at rural district hospitals in Rwanda. Methods: Laboratory needs assessments were conducted, and based on identified equipment gaps, appropriate requisitions were processed. Laboratory technicians were trained on microbiology testing processes and open wound samples were collected and cultured at the district hospital (DH) laboratories before being transported to the National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Quality control (QC) assessments were performed at the DHs and NRL. We then estimated the cost of three scenarios for implementing a decentralized microbiology diagnostic testing system. Results: There was an eight-month delay from the completion of the laboratory needs assessments to the initiation of sample collection due to the regional unavailability of appropriate supplies and equipment. When comparing study samples processed by study laboratory technicians and QC samples processed by other laboratory staff, there was 85.0% test result concordance for samples testing at the DHs and 90.0% concordance at the NRL. The cost for essential equipment and supplies for the three DHs was $245,871. The estimated costs for processing 600 samples ranged from $29,500 to $92,590. Conclusion: There are major gaps in equipment and supply availability needed to conduct basic microbiology assays at rural DHs. Despite these challenges, we demonstrated that it is feasible to establish microbiological testing capacity in Rwandan DHs. Building microbiological testing capacity is essential for improving clinical care, informing rational antibiotics use, and ultimately, contributing to the establishment of robust national antimicrobial stewardship programs in rural Rwanda and comparable settings.

Safe Anesthesia Care in Western Kenya: A Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Nurse Anesthetists at Multiple Levels of Government Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Only 20% of the surgical burden in eastern sub-Saharan Africa is currently met, leaving >17 million surgical cases annually in need of safe surgery and anesthesia. Similarly, there is an extreme shortage of anesthesia providers in East Africa, with just 0.44 anesthesiologists per 100,000 people in Kenya compared to 20.82 per 100,000 in the United States. Additionally, surgical access is not equally distributed within countries, with rural settings often having the greatest unmet need. We developed and tested a set of tools to assess if graduates of the Kenya registered nurse anesthetist (KRNA) training program, who were placed in rural hospitals in Kenya, would have any impact on surgical numbers, referral patterns, and economics of these hospitals. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected from facility assessments in 9 referral hospitals to evaluate the possible impact of the KRNAs on anesthesia care. The hospitals were grouped based on both the number of beds and the assigned national hospital level. At each level, a hospital that had KRNA graduates (intervention) was matched with comparison hospitals in the same category with no KRNA graduates (control). The facility assessment survey included questions capturing data on personnel, infrastructure, supplies, medications, procedures, and outcomes. At the intervention sites, the medical directors of the hospitals and the KRNAs were interviewed. Descriptive statistics were used to present the findings. RESULTS: Intervention sites had a density of anesthesia providers that was 43% higher compared to the control sites. Intervention sites performed at least twice as many surgical cases compared to the control sites. Most KRNAs stated that the anesthesia training program had given them sufficient training and leadership skills to perform safe anesthesia in their clinical practice setting. Medical directors at the intervention sites reported increased surgical volumes and fewer referrals to larger hospitals due to the anesthesia gaps that had been addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings from this study suggest that KRNAs may be associated with an increased volume of surgical cases completed in these rural Kenyan hospitals and may therefore be filling a known anesthetic void. The presence of skilled anesthesia providers is a first step toward providing safe surgery and anesthesia care for all; however, significant gaps still remain. Future analysis will focus on surgical outcomes, the appropriate anesthesia delivery model for a rural population, and how the availability of anesthesia infrastructure impacts referral patterns and safe surgery capacity.