Resilience of front-line facilities during COVID-19: evidence from cross-sectional rapid surveys in eight low- and middle-income countries.

Responsive primary health-care facilities are the foundation of resilient health systems, yet little is known about facility-level processes that contribute to the continuity of essential services during a crisis. This paper describes the aspects of primary health-care facility resilience to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in eight countries. Rapid-cycle phone surveys were conducted with health facility managers in Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Malawi and Nigeria between August 2020 and December 2021. Responses were mapped to a validated health facility resilience framework and coded as binary variables for whether a facility demonstrated capacity in eight areas: removing barriers to accessing services, infection control, workforce, surge capacity, financing, critical infrastructure, risk communications, and medical supplies and equipment. These self-reported capacities were summarized nationally and validated with the ministries of health. The analysis of service volume data determined the outcome: maintenance of essential health services. Of primary health-care facilities, 1,453 were surveyed. Facilities maintained between 84% and 97% of the expected outpatient services, except for Bangladesh, where 69% of the expected outpatient consultations were conducted between March 2020 and December 2021. For Burkina Faso, Chad, Guatemala, Guinea and Nigeria, critical infrastructure was the largest constraint in resilience capabilities (47%, 14%, 51%, 9% and 29% of facilities demonstrated capacity, respectively). Medical supplies and equipment were the largest constraints for Liberia and Malawi (15% and 48% of facilities demonstrating capacity, respectively). In Bangladesh, the largest constraint was workforce and staffing, where 44% of facilities experienced moderate to severe challenges with human resources during the pandemic. The largest constraints in facility resilience during COVID-19 were related to health systems building blocks. These challenges likely existed before the pandemic, suggesting the need for strategic investments and reforms in core capacities of comprehensive primary health-care systems to improve resilience to future shocks.

Mortality in perforated peptic ulcer patients after selective management of stratified poor risk cases.

INTRODUCTION: Perforated peptic ulcer disease continues to inflict high morbidity and mortality. Although patients can be stratified according to their surgical risk, optimal management has yet to be described. In this study we demonstrate a treatment option that improves the mortality among critically ill, poor risk patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: In our study, two series were retrospectively reviewed: group A patients (n = 522) were treated in a single surgical unit at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh during the 1980s. Among them, 124 patients were stratified as poor risk based on age, delayed presentation, peritoneal contamination, and coexisting medical problems. These criteria were the basis for selecting a group of poor risk patients (n = 84) for minimal surgical intervention (percutaneous peritoneal drainage) out of a larger group of patients, group B (n = 785) treated at Khulna Medical College Hospital during the 1990s. RESULTS: In group A, 479 patients underwent conventional operative management with an operative mortality of 8.97%. Among the 43 deaths, 24 patients were >60 years of age (55.8%), 12 patients had delayed presentation (27.9%), and 7 patients were in shock or had multiple coexisting medical problems (16.2%). In group B, 626 underwent conventional operative management, with 26 deaths at a mortality rate of 4.15%. Altogether, 84 patients were stratified as poor risk and were managed with minimal surgical intervention (percutaneous peritoneal drainage) followed by conservative treatment. Three of these patients died with an operative mortality of 3.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal surgical intervention (percutaneous peritoneal drainage) can significantly lower the mortality rate among a selected group of critically ill, poor risk patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.