Comparative Evaluation of Quality Management Practices in the Public and Private Hospitals in Visakhapatnam District: An Original Research.

Background: In the Visakhapatnam District, this study compares the quality management procedures used by public and private hospitals. Knowing how these practices are similar and different from one another can help inform policy decisions and improve the quality of health care. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used, and 100 hospitals from both public (50 hospitals) and private (50 hospitals) were included in the sample size. A standardized questionnaire that evaluated different aspects of quality management practices was used to gather the data. Descriptive statistics and inferential tests were used in the quantitative analysis. Results: Significant variations in quality management procedures between public and private hospitals were found. In terms of patient happiness, service responsiveness, and technological use, private hospitals scored better. Regarding accessibility, cost, and equity of healthcare services, public hospitals fared better. Conclusion: The report emphasizes the necessity of focused initiatives to improve quality management procedures in both public and commercial institutions. Collaboration between the two sectors can make it easier to deploy evidence-based tactics and share best practices to raise overall healthcare quality in the Visakhapatnam area.

Rhinosporidiosis in the parotid duct: a rare case report.

Endemic to South India and Sri Lanka, Rhinosporidiosis is a chronic granulomatous infection caused by an agent of uncertain taxonomy: Rhinosporidium seeberi. Although it commonly manifests as a proliferative nasal lesion, many cases of Rhinosporidiosis have been reported where it has appeared as an extranasal lesion. The reported extranasal sites include the eye, ear, trachea, and parotid duct. However, the involvement of the parotid duct is quite rare, even among extranasal sites. The case presented is an adult female from the non-endemic zone of East India with a proliferative mass in the parotid duct. Although Rhinosporidiosis was not taken into consideration in the clinical differential diagnosis, eventual histopathological diagnosis confirmed Rhinosporidiosis. As this appears to be the second case of Rhinosporidiosis in the parotid duct in East India in 4 years, we encourage clinicians to be flexible in the differential diagnosis of proliferative growth in the parotid duct, even in those from non-endemic areas.