Meeting oxygen needs in Africa: an options analysis from the Gambia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare oxygen supply options for health facilities in the Gambia and develop a decision-making algorithm for choosing oxygen delivery systems in Africa and the rest of the developing world. METHODS: Oxygen cylinders and concentrators were compared in terms of functionality and cost. Interviews with key informants using locally developed and adapted WHO instruments, operational assessments, cost-modelling and cost measurements were undertaken to determine whether oxygen cylinders or concentrators were the better choice. An algorithm and a software tool to guide the choice of oxygen delivery system were constructed. FINDINGS: In the Gambia, oxygen concentrators have significant advantages compared to cylinders where power is reliable; in other settings, cylinders are preferable as long as transporting them is feasible. Cylinder costs are greatly influenced by leakage, which is common, whereas concentrator costs are affected by the cost of power far more than by capital costs. Only two of 12 facilities in the Gambia were found suitable for concentrators; at the remaining 10 facilities, cylinders were the better option. CONCLUSION: Neither concentrators nor cylinders are well suited to every situation, but a simple options assessment can determine which is better in each setting. Nationally this would result in improved supply and lower costs by comparison with conventional cylinders alone, although ensuring a reliable supply would remain a challenge. The decision algorithm and software tool designed for the Gambia could be applied in other developing countries.

Beyond good intentions: lessons on equipment donation from an African hospital.

OBJECTIVE: In 2000, a referral hospital in the Gambia accepted a donation of oxygen concentrators to help maintain oxygen supplies. The concentrators broke down and were put into storage. A case study was done to find the reasons for the problem and to draw lessons to help improve both oxygen supplies and the success of future equipment donations. METHODS: A technical assessment of the concentrators was carried out by a biomedical engineer with relevant expertise. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with key informants, and content analysis and inductive approaches were applied to construct the history of the episode and the reasons for the failure. FINDINGS: Interviews confirmed the importance of technical problems with the equipment. They also revealed that the donation process was flawed, and that the hospital did not have the expertise to assess or maintain the equipment. Technical assessment showed that all units had the wrong voltage and frequency, leading to overheating and breakdown. Subsequently a hospital donations committee was established to oversee the donations process. On-site biomedical engineering expertise was arranged with a nongovernmental organization (NGO) partner. CONCLUSION: Appropriate donations of medical equipment, including oxygen concentrators, can be of benefit to hospitals in resource-poor settings, but recipients and donors need to actively manage donations to ensure that the donations are beneficial. Success requires planning, technical expertise and local participation. Partners with relevant skills and resources may also be needed. In 2002, WHO produced guidelines for medical equipment donations, which address problems that might be encountered. These guidelines should be publicized and used.