A 20-year experience with nocardiosis in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients in the Southwestern United States: A single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Nocardiosis is a life-threatening opportunistic infection. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at higher risk (incidence 0.04%-3.5%) of developing nocardiosis. Rate of nocardiosis in the Southwestern US may be high due to environmental factors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review study on 54 SOT patients diagnosed with Nocardia between 1997 and 2016 at our center. To explore the association of various risk factors with both the development of disseminated disease and mortality, a series of Fisher's exact tests was used. FINDINGS: Incidence of nocardiosis in SOT patients was 2.65%. Fisher's exact tests revealed no association between development of disseminated disease and the following variables: transplant rejection (P = 1), elevated tacrolimus levels (P = .4), and CMV viremia (P = .06). Also, we did not find any association between mortality and the variables we evaluated: type of transplant, transplant rejection, renal failure, disseminated nocardia, and patient's age. Overall mortality and 1-year mortality were 17% and 11%. INTERPRETATION: Based on our findings, daily 1 DS TMP/SMX prophylaxis did not appear to provide reliable protection against nocardiosis. However, we could not state definitely that TMP/SMX prophylaxis was or wasn't protective because of lack control group. None of the Fisher's exact tests revealed associations between the tested risk factors and either disease dissemination or mortality. This could be due to a true lack of association between the variables in each pair. However, it is also likely that our relatively small sample size limited our power to detect underlying relationships that may be present. Compared with other studies, 1-year mortality was lower at our institution (11% vs 16%).

A Primary Care System to Improve Health Care Efficiency: Lessons from Ecuador.

Ecuador is a country with few resources to spend on health care. Historically, Ecuador has struggled to find a model for health care that is efficient, effective, and available to all people in the country, even those in underserved and rural communities. In 2000, the Ecuador Ministry of Public Health implemented a new system of health care that used primary care as its platform. Since then, Ecuador has been able to increase its health care efficiency, increasing its ranking from 111 of 211 countries worldwide in 2000, to 20 of 211 countries in 2014. This article briefly reviews the new components of the system implemented in Ecuador and examines the tools used to accomplish this. The discussion also compares and contrasts the Ecuador and US systems, and identifies concepts and policies from Ecuador that could improve the US system.

Trauma education and care in the jungle of Ecuador, where there is no advanced trauma life support.

BACKGROUND: The advanced trauma life support course is not available or affordable to rural areas in low-income countries. A trauma continuing education course was created to educate physicians of rural hospitals in the jungles of Ecuador. METHODS: A basic trauma care course was designed based on local resources and location of injury, including rudimentary health posts in the jungle, rural hospitals, and definitive referral centers. Course effectiveness was evaluated by a comparison of test scores before and after the course. A multiple choice questionnaire was given. Comparison to previous test scores was also performed. Paired Student's t test was used for statistical analysis. An objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), based on the course design, was administered. RESULTS: Twenty-six rural physicians participated in the course. Mean test scores significantly improved from pretest to post-test (72% to 79%; p = 0.032). Knowledge deficiencies in prehospital care, extremity injury care, and patient evaluation adjuncts significantly improved from 23% to 87%, 23% to 100%, and 31% to 100%, respectively. Test results after the course showed improvements in all major categories tested. Twelve of the 26 participants were repeat test takers from a course provided 2 years earlier. These participants showed improved pretest scores compared with their highest previous test score (76.8% versus 68.5%; p = 0.0496). Compared with first-time test takers, these participants showed improved pretest (76.8% versus 68.4%) as well as post-test (81% versus 76%) scores. Twenty-five of the 26 physicians participated in the OSCE, with a pass rate of 76%. The OSCE identified various strengths and deficiencies based on patient location and available resources. In rudimentary health posts, management was adequate for hemorrhage control (65%), immobilization (77%), and early transfer to rural hospitals (92%). Prehospital communication was inadequate (53%). Rural hospital management was adequate for primary evaluation (60%) and resuscitation (74%) but poor in secondary patient evaluation (53%), adjuncts (25%), and transfer to definitive referral centers (11%). OSCE scores differed from multiple choice questionnaire test results. DISCUSSION: Where there is no advanced trauma life support, a tailored trauma course and evaluation can be effective in educating local providers. A well-designed competency evaluation (multiple choice questionnaire and OSCE) is helpful in identifying deficient local aspects of trauma care. The course design and evaluation methods may serve as a model for continuing trauma care education in developing countries.