Safer injections following a new national medicine policy in the public sector, Burkina Faso 1995-2000.

BACKGROUND: The common failure of health systems to ensure adequate and sufficient supplies of injection devices may have a negative impact on injection safety. We conducted an assessment in April 2001 to determine to which extent an increase in safe injection practices between 1995 and 2000 was related to the increased access to injection devices because of a new essential medicine policy in Burkina Faso. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes of the new medicine policy implemented in 1995. In April 2001, a retrospective programme review assessed the situation between 1995 and 2000. We visited 52 health care facilities where injections had been observed during a 2000 injection safety assessment and their adjacent operational public pharmaceutical depots. Data collection included structured observations of available injection devices and an estimation of the proportion of prescriptions including at least one injection. We interviewed wholesaler managers at national and regional levels on supply of injection devices to public health facilities. RESULTS: Fifty of 52 (96%) health care facilities were equipped with a pharmaceutical depot selling syringes and needles, 37 (74%) of which had been established between 1995 and 2000. Of 50 pharmaceutical depots, 96% had single-use 5 ml syringes available. At all facilities, patients were buying syringes and needles out of the depot for their injections prescribed at the dispensary. While injection devices were available in greater quantities, the proportion of prescriptions including at least one injection remained stable between 1995 (26.5%) and 2000 (23.8%). CONCLUSION: The implementation of pharmaceutical depots next to public health care facilities increased geographical access to essential medicines and basic supplies, among which syringes and needles, contributing substantially to safer injection practices in the absence of increased use of therapeutic injections.

Rapid assessment of injection practices in Mongolia.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal reports suggest that unsafe injections may transmit blood-borne pathogens in Mongolia. METHODS: The Ministry of Health of Mongolia collected information on injection practices, their determinants, and their consequences through interviews and observations of a small convenience sample of prescribers, injection providers, and members of the general population. RESULTS: The 65 members of the general population reported receiving an average of 13 injections per year. New, single-use injection devices were used in the 20 health care facilities visited. There were breaks in infection control practices while administering injections, including observations of 500-mL intravenous infusion bottles used as multiple-dose diluent vials and 8 of the 28 providers (28%) reporting reuse of device on the same patient. Injection providers reported 2.6 needle-stick injuries per year. Contaminated sharps were burned in a drum. Among persons interviewed, 19 of the 21 prescribers (90%) and 49% of the population were aware of the potential risk of HIV transmission through unsafe injections. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary initiative is necessary to achieve safe and appropriate use of injections in Mongolia through (1) behavior change, (2) increasing availability of injection devices and sharps boxes, and (3) appropriate sharps waste management.

Could the WHO model list of essential medicines do more for the safe and appropriate use of injections?

A national drug policy addressing the safe and appropriate use of injections is an important element to prevent overuse and unsafe use of injections. Because the World Health Organization World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines is a keystone of national drug policies, the authors examined the way it addresses injection practices. They reviewed the 11th World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines to collect information on (1) injectable medicines, (2) diluents, and (3) the recommendations regarding the procurement of injection devices. Of 306 active ingredients on the list, 135 (44%) are mentioned in injectable form. Of these, 41 (30%) need diluents for reconstitution. The list does not mention the need to procure appropriate diluents, injection devices, and safety boxes in quantities that match the quantities of injectable medicines. In addition, the list provides limited information that can be used to forecast the needs of injection devices to administer the injectable medicines that are included in the list. Future revisions of the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines should attempt to reduce the number of injectable formulations on the basis of evidence. In addition, the list should specify that when injectable medicines are being supplied, diluents, single-use syringes, and safety boxes should be supplied. The volume of syringes needed for administration should be specified for each injectable medication on the list to facilitate the forecasting of the needs of injection devices.

Essential medicines for reproductive health: developing evidence based interagency list.

OBJECTIVES: Although poor reproductive health constitutes a significant proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, essential medicines for reproductive health are often not available to the population. The objective was to analyze the guiding principles for developing national Essential Medicines Lists (EML). The second objective was to compare the reproductive health medicines included on these EMLs to the 2002 WHO/UNFPA list of essential drugs and commodities for reproductive health. Another objective was to compare the medicines included in existing international lists of medicines for reproductive health. METHODS: The authors calculated the average number of medicines per clinical groups included in 112 national EMLs and compared these average numbers with the number of medicines per clinical group included on the WHO/UNFPA List. Additionally, they compared the content of the lists of medicines for reproductive health developed by various international agencies. RESULTS: In 2003, the review of the 112 EMLs highlighted that medicines for reproductive health were not consistently included. The review of the international lists identified inconsistencies in their recommendations. The reviews' outcomes became the catalyst for collaboration among international agencies in the development of the first harmonized Interagency List of Essential Medicines for Reproductive Health. Additionally, WHO, UNFPA and PATH published guidelines to support the inclusion of essential medicines for reproductive health in national medicine policies and EMLs. The Interagency List became a key advocacy tool for countries to review their EMLs.In 2009, a UNFPA/WHO assessment on access to reproductive health medicines in six countries demonstrated that the major challenge was that the Interagency List had not been updated recently and was inconsistently used. CONCLUSION: The addition of cost-effective medicines for reproductive health to EMLs can result in enhanced equity in access to and cost containment of these medicines, and improve quality of care. Action is required to ensure their inclusion in national budget lines, supply chains, policies and programmatic guidance.