Time intervals to care and health service use experiences of uninsured cancer patients treated under public financing in Mexico City.

BACKGROUND: The present study assesses the time intervals from symptom discovery to treatment start and describes the health service use experiences of uninsured patients with cancer of the breast, cervix uteri, testicle, and prostate before their arrival to the cancer hospital. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 1468 patients who were diagnosed between June 2016 and May 2017 and received treatment for the selected cancers in two of the largest public cancer hospitals in Mexico City, financed through Seguro Popular. Data was collected through a survey administered via face-to-face interviews with patients and a review of their medical files. RESULTS: The median time between detection (symptom discovery or first abnormal screening test) and treatment start was 6.6 months. For all types of cancer, the longest interval was the diagnostic interval -between the first use of healthcare services and the confirmation of cancer. Less than 20% cancer patients were diagnosed in the earliest stages that are associated with the best chances of long-term survival. The participants described a high use of private services for their first consultation, the use of several different types of health services and multiple consultations before arrival to the cancer centers, and 35% perceived being misdiagnosed by the first doctor they consulted. CONCLUSIONS: Most cancer patients treated in the two largest public institutions available for the uninsured faced long delays to get diagnosed and started treatment at advanced stages. Strengthening quality and access for effective early cancer diagnosis and treatment is key to improve patient outcomes in low and middle-income settings.

Surgical Site Infection Rate Drops to 0% Using a Vacuum-Assisted Closure in Contaminated/Dirty Infected Laparotomy Wounds.

Wound site infections increase costs, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Techniques used for wounds management after laparotomy are primary, delayed primary, and vacuum-assisted closures. The objective of this study is to compare infection rates between those techniques in contaminated and dirty/infected wounds. Eighty-one laparotomized patients with Class III or IV surgical wounds were enrolled in a three-arm randomized prospective study. Patients were allocated to each group with the software Research Randomizer® (Urbaniak, G. C., & Plous, S., Version 4.0). Presence of infection was determined by a certified board physician according to Centers for Disease Control's Criteria for Defining a Surgical Site Infection. Twenty-seven patients received primary closure, 29 delayed primary closure, and 25 vacuum-assisted closure, with no exclusions for analysis. Surgical site infection was present in 10 (37%) patients treated with primary closure, 5 (17%) with primary delayed closure, and 0 (0%) patients receiving vacuum-assisted closure. Statistical significance was found between infection rates of the vacuum-assisted group and the other two groups. No significant difference was found between the primary and primary delayed closure groups. The infection rate in contaminated/dirty-infected laparotomy wounds decreases from 37 and 17 per cent with a primary and delayed primary closures, respectively, to 0 per cent with vacuum-assisted systems.