How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

CURB-65 and Other Markers of Illness Severity in Community-Acquired Pneumonia Among HIV-Positive Patients

As the relative burden of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia among HIV-positive patients increases, adequate prediction of case severity on presentation is crucial. We sought to determine what characteristics measurable on presentation are predictive of worse outcomes. We studied all admissions for community-acquired bacterial pneumonia over one year at a tertiary centre. Patient demographics, comorbidities, HIV-specific markers and CURB-65 scores on Emergency Department presentation were reviewed. Outcomes of interest included mortality, bacteraemia, intensive care unit admission and orotracheal intubation. A total of 396 patients were included: 49 HIV-positive and 347 HIV-negative. Mean CURB-65 score was 1.3 for HIV-positive and 2.2 for HIV-negative patients (p < 0.0001), its predictive value for mortality being maintained in both groups (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively). Adjusting for CURB-65 scores, HIV infection by itself was only associated with bacteraemia (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 7.1, 95% CI [2.6-19.5]). Patients with < 200 CD4 cells/µL presented similar CURB-65 adjusted mortality (aOR 1.7, 95% CI [0.2-15.2]), but higher risk of intensive care unit admission (aOR 5.7, 95% CI [1.5-22.0]) and orotracheal intubation (aOR 9.1, 95% CI [2.2-37.1]), compared to HIV-negative patients. These two associations were not observed in the > 200 CD4 cells/µL subgroup (aOR 2.2, 95% CI [0.7-7.6] and aOR 0.8, 95% CI [0.1-6.5], respectively). Antiretroviral therapy and viral load suppression were not associated with different outcomes (p > 0.05). High CURB-65 scores and CD4 counts < 200 cells/µL were both associated with worse outcomes. Severity assessment scales and CD4 counts may both be helpful in predicting severity in HIV-positive patients presenting with community-acquired bacterial pneumonia.