Effectiveness of healthcare waste management interventions in developing countries

Inefficiencies during the management of healthcare waste can give rise to undesirable health effects such as transmission of infections and environmental pollution within and beyond the health facilities generating these wastes. Factors such as prevalence of diseases, conflicts, and the efflux of intellectual capacity make low income countries more susceptible to these adverse health effects. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the effectiveness of interventions geared towards better managing the generation, collection, transport, treatment and disposal of medical waste, as they have been applied in lower and middle income countries.^ Using a systematic search strategy and evaluation of study quality, this study reviewed the literature for published studies on healthcare waste management interventions carried out in developing countries, specifically the low and lower middle income countries from year 2000 to the current year. From an initially identified set of 829 studies, only three studies ultimately met all inclusion, exclusion and high quality criteria. A multi component intervention in Syrian Arab Republic, conducted in 2007 was aimed at improving waste segregation practice in a hospital setting. There was an increased use of segregation boxes and reduced rates of sharps injury among staff as a result of the intervention. Another study, conducted in 2008, trained medical students as monitors of waste segregation practice in an Indian teaching hospital. There was improved practice in wards and laboratories but not in the intensive care units. The third study, performed in 2008 in China, consisted of modification of the components of a medical waste incinerator to improve efficiency and reduce stack emissions. Gaseous pollutants emitted, except polychlorodibenzofurans (PCDF) were below US EPA permissible exposure limits. Heavy metal residues in the fly ash remained unchanged.^ Due to the paucity of well-designed studies, there is insufficient evidence in literature to conclude on the effectiveness of interventions in low income settings. There is suggestive but insufficient evident that multi-component interventions aimed at improving waste segregation through behavior modification, provision of segregation tools and training of monitors are effective in low income settings.^

Doctor-patient communication in the medical interaction: Context, implications, and practice

Effective communication; whether from an interpersonal, mass media, or global perspective, is a critical component in public health. It is an essential conduit in increasing public awareness of available health resources, potential health hazards and related disease prevention strategies, and in delivering better health care. Within this context, available literature asserts doctor-patient communication as central to healthcare delivery. It has been shown to affect patient health outcomes, satisfaction with care, adherence to treatment recommendations, and even understanding of medical information. While research supports the essential imperative of interventions aimed at teaching doctors and patients the communication skills necessary for a successful and meaningful medical interaction, most interventions to date, focus on teaching these communication skills to doctors and seem to rely, largely, on mass media for providing patients with the information needed to increase communication efficacy. This study sought to fill a significant gap in the doctor-patient communication literature by reviewing the context of the doctor-patient exchange in the medical interaction, the implications of this exchange in resulting care of the patient, and the potential improvements to practice through interventions aimed at improving the communication exchange. Closing with an evaluation of a patient-centered communication intervention, the “How to Talk to Your Doctor” (HTTTYD) program that combines previously identified optimal strategies for improving communication between doctors and patients, this study examined the patients’ perspective of their potential as better communicators in the medical interaction. ^ Specific Aims, Hypotheses or Questions (Aim I) To examine the context of health communication within a public health framework and its relation to health care delivery. (Aim II) To review doctor-patient communication as a central focus within health care delivery and the resulting implications to patient care. (Aim III) To assess the utility of interventions to improve doctor-patient communication. Specifically, to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient-centered community education intervention, the “How to Talk to Your Doctor” (HTTTYD) program, aimed at improving patient communication efficacy.^

A practice-based culminating experience: Writing a HRSA grant application with Texas Organ Sharing Alliance for public education efforts to increase solid organ donation

In November 2010, nearly 110,000 people in the United States were waiting for organs for transplantation. Despite the fact that the organ donor registration rate has doubled in the last year, Texas has the lowest registration rate in the nation. Due to the need for improved registration rates in Texas, this practice-based culminating experience was to write an application for federal funding for the central Texas organ procurement organization, Texas Organ Sharing Alliance. The culminating experience has two levels of significance for public health – (1) to engage in an activity to promote organ donation registration, and (2) to provide professional experience in grant writing. ^ The process began with a literature review. The review was to identify successful intervention activities in motivating organ donation registration that could be used in intervention design for the grant application. Conclusions derived from the literature review included (1) the need to specifically encourage family discussions, (2) religious and community leaders can be leveraged to facilitate organ donation conversations in families, (3) communication content must be culturally sensitive and (4) ethnic disparities in transplantation must be acknowledged and discussed.^ Post the literature review; the experience followed a five step process of developing the grant application. The steps included securing permission to proceed, assembling a project team, creation of a project plan and timeline, writing each element of the grant application including the design of proposed intervention activities, and completion of the federal grant application. ^ After the grant application was written, an evaluation of the grant writing process was conducted. Opportunities for improvement were identified. The first opportunity was the need for better timeline management to allow for review of the application by an independent party, iterative development of the budget proposal, and development of collaborative partnerships. Another improvement opportunity was the management of conflict regarding the design of the intervention that stemmed from marketing versus evidence-based approaches. The most important improvement opportunity was the need to develop a more exhaustive evaluation plan.^ Eight supplementary files are attached to appendices: Feasibility Discussion in Appendix 1, Grant Guidance and Workshop Notes in Appendix 2, Presentation to Texas Organ Sharing Alliance in Appendix 3, Team Recruitment Presentation in Appendix 5, Grant Project Narrative in Appendix 7, Federal Application Form in Appendix 8, and Budget Workbook with Budget Narrative in Appendix 9.^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^

Global practice experience: A useful lens for understanding patient and staff perceptions of successful integration of health information technology in primary care

Making healthcare comprehensive and more efficient remains a complex challenge. Health Information Technology (HIT) is recognized as an important component of this transformation but few studies describe HIT adoption and it's effect on the bedside experience by physicians, staff and patients. This study applied descriptive statistics and correlation analysis to data from the Patient-Centered Medical Home National Demonstration Project (NDP) of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Thirty-six clinics were followed for 26 months by clinician/staff questionnaires and patient surveys. This study characterizes those clinics as well as staff and patient perspectives on HIT usefulness, the doctor-patient relationship, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and computer connections in the practice throughout the study. The Global Practice Experience factor, a composite score related to key components of primary care, was then correlated to clinician and patient perspectives. This study found wide adoption of HIT among NDP practices. Patient perspectives on HIT helpfulness on the doctor-patient showed a suggestive trend that approached statistical significance (p = 0.172). Clinicians and staff noted successful integration of EMR into clinic workflow and their perception of helpfulness to the doctor-patient relationship show a suggestive increase also approaching statistical significance (p=0.06). GPE was correlated with clinician/staff assessment of a helpful doctor-patient relationship midway through the study (R 0.460, p = 0.021) with the remaining time points nearing statistical significance. GPE was also correlated to both patient perspectives of EMR helpfulness in the doctor-patient relationship (R 0.601, p = 0.001) and computer connections (R 0.618, p = 0.0001) at the start of the study. ^