Readiness, acceptability, and feasibility of differentiated TB care for COVID-positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients diagnosed in a district in South India: Mixed methods study.

Background: Differentiated tuberculosis care (DTC) approach is the need of the hour to mitigate those risks and provide better treatment outcomes to reduce both mortality and morbidity. Before implementing such an approach, there should be adequate literature on healthcare facility assessment along with qualitative exploration on readiness and acceptability among various stakeholders that are currently needed to fill the gaps in National Tuberculosis Elimination Program. Objectives: Our study objectives were to assess the availability of equipment, treatment, and investigations for managing patients under the DTC approach, to explore the readiness, acceptability, and feasibility of the DTC approach among healthcare providers involved in TB care provision, and to determine the knowledge regarding DTC approach among healthcare providers delivering TB care for COVID-positive pulmonary TB patients. Materials and Methods: All Peripheral Health Institutes (PHIs) in two randomly chosen blocks within the Tiruchirappalli district's health units were selected for the healthcare facilities assessment. By the universal sampling method, all the stakeholders were included. The study population was assessed for their knowledge regarding DTC. Checklist-based assessment of the feasibility of healthcare services followed by a questionnaire-based knowledge assessment was done. An in-depth interview-based exploration of readiness and acceptability of the DTC approach was conducted. This study was conducted among various stakeholders involved in TB care in selected PHIs of Tiruchirappalli from July 2022 to October 2022. Results: The majority of healthcare workers (HCWs) are unaware of bidirectional screening (89.0%) and lack training in providing TB care to COVID-co-infected patients (87.8%), although the majority were aware of risk stratification for TB patients (90.2%) and are linking TB with other co-morbidities (82.9%). About 62.2% of HCWs claimed they are not using information communication technology-based services to receive lab findings from public scans and laboratory centers, and more than one-third were unaware of these facilities. Based on the qualitative assessment, most of them were willing to undergo periodic training to improvise their approach and treatment. Also, most of the HCWs felt manpower can be increased for the specific care of the patients. Conclusion: The research suggests that with sufficient training and upskilling of the HCWs, DTC is almost feasible and that HCWs will accept it if specific strategies are used. More studies like these in assessing the feasibility and acceptability of this DTC approach and exploring the challenges and solutions will help the policymakers in finding the lacunae before implementing this DTC model in various states across India.

Does audit improve diabetes care in a primary care setting? A management tool to address health system gaps.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus is one of the emerging epidemics. Regular clinical and biochemical monitoring of patients, adherence to treatment and counseling are cornerstones for prevention of complications. Clinical audits as a process of improving quality of patient care and outcomes by reviewing care against specific criteria and then reviewing the change can help in optimizing care. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to audit the process of diabetes care using patient records and also to assess the effect of audit on process of care indicators among patients availing diabetes care from a rural health and training center in Puducherry, South India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A record based study was conducted to audit diabetes care among patients attending noncommunicable disease clinic in a rural health center of South India. Monitoring of blood pressure (BP), blood glucose, lipid profile and renal function test were considered for auditing in accordance with standard guidelines. Clinical audit cycle (CAC), a simple management tool was applied and re-audit was done after 1-year. RESULTS: We reviewed 156 and 180 patients records during year-1 and year-2, respectively. In the audit year-1, out of 156 patients, 78 (50%), 70 (44.9%), 49 (31.4%) and 19 (12.2%) had got their BP, blood glucose, lipid profile and renal function tests done. Monitoring of blood glucose, BP, lipid profile and renal function improved significantly by 35%, 20.7%, 36.4% and 56.1% over 1-year. CONCLUSION: CAC improves process of diabetes care in a primary care setting with existing resources.