Sexual reproductive health service provision to young people in Kenya; health service providers' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Addressing the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of young people remains a challenge for most developing countries. This study explored the perceptions and experiences of Health Service Providers (HSP) in providing SRH services to young people in Kenya. METHODS: Qualitative study conducted in eight health facilities; five from Nairobi and three rural district hospitals in Laikipia, Meru Central, and Kirinyaga. Nineteen in-depth interviews (IDI) and two focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with HSPs. Interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. Data was coded and analysed using the thematic framework approach. RESULTS: The majority of HSPs were aware of the youth friendly service (YFS) concept but not of the supporting national policies and guidelines. HSP felt they lacked competency in providing SRH services to young people especially regarding counselling and interpersonal communication. HSPs were conservative with regards to providing SRH services to young people particularly contraception. HSP reported being torn between personal feelings, cultural and religious values and beliefs and their wish to respect young people's rights to accessing and obtaining SRH services. CONCLUSION: Supporting youth friendly policies and competency based training of HSP are two common approaches used to improve SRH services for adolescents. However, these may not be sufficient to change HSPs' attitude to adolescents seeking help. There is need to address the cultural, religious and traditional value systems that prevent HSPs from providing good quality and comprehensive SRH services to young people. Training updates should include sessions that enable HSPs to evaluate how their personal and cultural values and beliefs influence practice.

Patient and primary care physician satisfaction with chest pain unit and routine care.

OBJECTIVES: The chest pain unit (CPU) has been developed to improve care for patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain. The authors aimed to measure patient and primary care physician (PCP) satisfaction with CPU care and routine care and to determine whether patient satisfaction predicted PCP satisfaction. METHODS: A CPU was established, and 442 days were randomly allocated to either CPU care or routine care. Consenting patients presenting with acute, undifferentiated chest pain were recruited and followed at two days and one month. All were given a self-completed patient satisfaction questionnaire two days after attendance (N = 972). Each patient's PCP was sent a self-completed satisfaction questionnaire during days 171-442 of the trial (N = 601). Analysis determined whether CPU care was associated with improved patient or PCP satisfaction and whether patient satisfaction predicted PCP satisfaction for three questions relating to diagnosis, treatment, and overall care. RESULTS: CPU care was consistently associated with higher scores across all patient satisfaction questions, from the perceived thoroughness of examination to care received to an overall assessment of the service received. However, CPU care achieved small improvements in only two of ten PCP satisfaction questions, concerning overall management of the patient and the amount of information about investigations performed. Furthermore, patient satisfaction did not predict PCP satisfaction in relation to diagnosis (p = 0.456), treatment (p = 0.256), or overall care (p = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: CPU care is associated with substantial improvements in all dimensions of patient satisfaction but only minimal improvements in PCP satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was not a strong predictor of PCP satisfaction with emergency care.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of providing care in a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care for patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial, with 442 days randomised to the chest pain observation unit or routine care, and cost effectiveness analysis from a health service costing perspective. SETTING: The emergency department at the Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 972 patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain (479 attending on days when care was delivered in the chest pain observation unit, 493 on days of routine care) followed up until six months after initial attendance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of participants admitted to hospital, the proportion with acute coronary syndrome sent home inappropriately, major adverse cardiac events over six months, health utility, hospital reattendance and readmission, and costs per patient to the health service. RESULTS: Use of a chest pain observation unit reduced the proportion of patients admitted from 54% to 37% (difference 17%, odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.001) and the proportion discharged with acute coronary syndrome from 14% to 6% (8%, -7% to 23%, P = 0.264). Rates of cardiac event were unchanged. Care in the chest pain observation unit was associated with improved health utility during follow up (0.0137 quality adjusted life years gained, 95% confidence interval 0.0030 to 0.0254, P = 0.022) and a saving of pound 78 per patient (- pound 56 to pound 210, P = 0.252). CONCLUSIONS: Care in a chest pain observation unit can improve outcomes and may reduce costs to the health service. It seems to be more effective and more cost effective than routine care.