Hospital readiness for the provision of care to critically ill patients in Tanzania- an in-depth cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Critical illness is a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and potential for reversibility. The burden of critical illness is high, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Critical care can be provided as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC)- the effective, low-cost, basic care that all critically ill patients should receive in all parts of all hospitals in the world- and advanced critical care- complex, resource-intensive care usually provided in an intensive care unit. The required resources may be available in the hospital and yet not be ready in the wards for immediate use for critically ill patients. The ward readiness of these resources, although harder to evaluate, is likely more important than their availability in the hospital. This study aimed to assess the ward readiness for EECC and the hospital availability of resources for EECC and for advanced critical care in hospitals in Tanzania.

METHODS

An in-depth, cross-sectional study was conducted in five purposively selected hospitals by visiting all wards to collect data on all the required 66 EECC and 161 advanced critical care resources. We defined hospital-availability as a resource present in the hospital and ward-readiness as a resource available, functioning, and present in the right place, time and amounts for critically ill patient care in the wards. Data were analyzed to calculate availability and readiness scores as proportions of the resources that were available at hospital level, and ready at ward level respectively.

RESULTS

Availability of EECC resources in hospitals was 84% and readiness in the wards was 56%. District hospitals had lower readiness scores (less than 50%) than regional and tertiary hospitals. Equipment readiness was highest (65%) while that of guidelines lowest (3%). Availability of advanced critical care resources was 31%.

CONCLUSION

Hospitals in Tanzania lack readiness for the provision of EECC- the low-cost, life-saving care for critically ill patients. The resources for EECC were available in hospitals, but were not ready for the immediate needs of critically ill patients in the wards. To provide effective EECC to all patients, improvements are needed around the essential, low-cost resources in hospital wards that are essential for decreasing preventable deaths.

Receive, Sustain, and Flow: A simple heuristic for facilitating the identification and treatment of critically ill patients during their hospital journeys

Background

Hospital patients can become critically ill anywhere in a hospital but their survival is affected by problems of identification and adequate, timely, treatment. This is issue of particular concern in lower middle-income countries' (LMICs) hospitals where specialised units are scarce and severely under-resourced. "Cross-sectional" approaches to improving narrow, specific aspects of care will not attend to issues that affect patients' care across the length of their experience. A simpler approach to understanding key issues across the "hospital journey" could help to deliver life-saving treatments to those patients who need it, wherever they are in the facility.

Methods

We carried out 31 narrative interviews with frontline health workers in five Kenyan and five Tanzanian hospitals from November 2020 to December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. We also followed 12 patient hospital journeys, through the course of treatment of very sick patients admitted to the hospitals we studied.

Results

Our research explores gaps in hospital systems that result in lapses in effective, continuous care across the hospital journeys of patients in Tanzania and Kenya. We organise these factors according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) approach to patient safety, which we extend to explore how these issues affect patients across the course of care. We discern three repeating, recursive phases we term Receive, Sustain, and Flow. We use this heuristic to show how gaps and weaknesses in service provision affect critically ill patients' hospital journeys.

Conclusion

Receive, Sustain, and Flow offers a heuristic for hospital management to identify and ameliorate limitations in human and technical resources for the care of the critically ill.

Hospital care for critical illness in low-resource settings: lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic

Care for the critically ill patients is often considered synonymous with a hospital having an intensive care unit. However, a focus on Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) may obviate the need for much intensive care. Severe COVID-19 presented a specific critical care challenge while also being an exemplar of critical illness in general. Our multidisciplinary team conducted research in Kenya and Tanzania on hospitals' ability to provide EECC as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. Important basic inputs were often lacking, especially sufficient numbers of skilled health workers. However, we learnt that higher scores on resource readiness scales were often misleading, as resources were often insufficient or not functional in all the clinical areas they are needed. By following patient journeys, through interviews and group discussions, we revealed gaps in timeliness, continuity and delivery of care. Generic challenges in transitions between departments were identified in the receipt of critically ill patients, the ability to sustain monitoring and treatment and preparation for any subsequent transition. While the global response to COVID-19 focused initially on providing technologies and training, first ventilators and later oxygen, organisational and procedural challenges seemed largely ignored. Yet, they may even be exacerbated by new technologies. Efforts to improve care for the critically ill patients, which is a complex process, must include a whole system and whole facility view spanning all areas of patients' care and their transitions and not be focused on a single location providing 'critical care'. We propose a five-part strategy to support the system changes needed.

COVID-19 and unintended steps towards further equity in global health research

There was, and possibly still is, potential for COVID-19 to disrupt power inequities and contribute to positive transformation in global health research that increases equity. While there is consensus about the need to decolonise by transforming global health, and a roadmap outlining how we could approach it, there are few examples of steps that could be taken to transform the mechanics of global health research. This paper contributes lessons learnt from experiences and reflections of our diverse multinational team of researchers involved in a multicountry research project. We demonstrate the positive impact on our research project of making further steps towards improving equity within our research practices. Some of the approaches adopted include redistributing power to researchers from the countries of interest at various stages in their career, by involving the whole team in decisions about the research; meaningfully involving the whole team in research data analysis; and providing opportunities for all researchers from the countries of interest to voice their perspectives as first authors in publications. Although this approach is consistent with how research guidance suggests research should be run, in reality it does not often happen in this way. The authors of this paper hope that by sharing our experience, we can contribute towards discussions about the processes required to continue developing a global health sector that is equitable and inclusive.

Same label, different patients: Health-workers' understanding of the label 'critical illness'

Background

During the course of patients' sickness, some become critically ill, and identifying them is the first important step to be able to manage the illness. During the course of care provision, health workers sometimes use the term 'critical illness' as a label when referring to their patient's condition, and the label is then used as a basis for communication and care provision. Their understanding of this label will therefore have a profound impact on the identification and management of patients. This study aimed to determine how Kenyan and Tanzanian health workers understand the label 'critical illness'.

Methods

A total of 10 hospitals-five in Kenya and five in Tanzania-were visited. In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 nurses and physicians from different departments in the hospitals who had experience in providing care for sick patients. We conducted a thematic analysis of the translated and transcribed interviews, synthesized findings and developed an overarching set of themes which captured healthcare workers' understandings of the label 'critical illness'.

Results

Overall, there does not appear to be a unified understanding of the label 'critical illness' among health workers. Health workers understand the label to refer to patients in four thematic ways: (1) those in a life-threatening state; (2) those with certain diagnoses; (3) those receiving care in certain locations; and (4) those in need of a certain level of care.

Conclusion

There is a lack of a unified understanding about the label 'critical illness' among health workers in Tanzania and Kenya. This potentially hampers communication and the selection of patients for urgent life-saving care. A recently proposed definition, "a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and the potential for reversibility", could be useful for improving communication and care.