Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania

Third delay in care of critically ill patients: a qualitative investigation of public hospitals in Kenya

OBJECTIVES

Third delay refers to delays in delivering requisite care to patients after they arrive at a health facility. In low-resource care settings, effective triage and flow of care are difficult to guarantee. In this study, we aimed to identify delays in the delivery of care to critically ill patients and possible ways to address these delays.

DESIGN

This was an exploratory qualitative study using in-depth interviews and patient journeys. The qualitative data were transcribed and aggregated into themes in NVivo V.12 Plus using inductive and deductive approaches.

SETTING

This study was conducted in four secondary-level public Kenyan hospitals across four counties between March and December 2021. The selected hospitals were part of the Clinical Information Network.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling method was used to identify administrative and front-line healthcare providers and patients. We conducted 12 in-depth interviews with 11 healthcare workers and patient journeys of 7 patients. Informed consent was sought from the participants and maintained throughout the study.

RESULTS

We identified a cycle of suboptimal systems for care with adaptive mechanisms that prevent quality care to critically ill patients. We identified suboptimal systems for identification of critical illness, inadequate resources for continuity care and disruption of the flow of care, as the major causes of delays in identification and the initiation of essential care to critically ill patients. Our study also illuminated the contribution of inflexible bureaucratic non-clinical business-related organisational processes to third delay.

CONCLUSION

Eliminating or reducing delays after patients arrive at the hospital is a time-sensitive measure that could improve the care outcomes of critically ill patients. This is achievable through an essential emergency and critical care package within the hospitals. Our findings can help emphasise the need for standardised effective and reliable care priorities to maintain of care of critically ill patients.

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.

Diagnostics and treatments of COVID-19: two-year update to a living systematic review of economic evaluations

Objectives: As the initial crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic recedes, healthcare decision makers are likely to want to make rational evidence-guided choices between the many interventions now available. We sought to update a systematic review to provide an up-to-date summary of the cost-effectiveness evidence regarding tests for SARS-CoV-2 and treatments for COVID-19. Methods: Key databases, including MEDLINE, EconLit and Embase, were searched on 3 July 2023, 2 years on from the first iteration of this review in July 2021. We also examined health technology assessment (HTA) reports and the citations of included studies and reviews. Peer-reviewed studies reporting full health economic evaluations of tests or treatments in English were included. Studies were quality assessed using an established checklist, and those with very serious limitations were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted into predefined tables. Results: The database search identified 8,287 unique records, of which 54 full texts were reviewed, 28 proceeded for quality assessment, and 15 were included. Three further studies were included through HTA sources and citation checking. Of the 18 studies ultimately included, 17 evaluated treatments including corticosteroids, antivirals and immunotherapies. In most studies, the comparator was standard care. Two studies in lower-income settings evaluated the cost effectiveness of rapid antigen tests and critical care provision. There were 17 modelling analyses and 1 trial-based evaluation. Conclusion: A large number of economic evaluations of interventions for COVID-19 have been published since July 2021. Their findings can help decision makers to prioritise between competing interventions, such as the repurposed antivirals and immunotherapies now available to treat COVID-19. However, some evidence gaps remain present, including head-to-head analyses, disease-specific utility values, and consideration of different disease variants. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021272219], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021272219].

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.