BMC Health Services Research (Oct 2023)

Critical care capacity and care bundles on medical wards in Malawi: a cross-sectional study

  • Emilia Connolly,
  • Noel Kasomekera,
  • Paul D. Sonenthal,
  • Mulinda Nyirenda,
  • Regan H. Marsh,
  • Emily B. Wroe,
  • Kirstin W. Scott,
  • Alice Bukhman,
  • Tadala Minyaliwa,
  • Martha Katete,
  • Grace Banda,
  • Joia Mukherjee,
  • Shada A. Rouhani

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10014-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Introduction As low-income countries (LICs) shoulder a disproportionate share of the world’s burden of critical illnesses, they must continue to build critical care capacity outside conventional intensive care units (ICUs) to address mortality and morbidity, including on general medical wards. A lack of data on the ability to treat critical illness, especially in non-ICU settings in LICs, hinders efforts to improve outcomes. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the cross-sectional Malawi Emergency and Critical Care (MECC) survey, administered from January to February 2020, to a random sample of nine public sector district hospitals and all four central hospitals in Malawi. This analysis describes inputs, systems, and barriers to care in district hospitals compared to central hospital medical wards, including if any medical wards fit the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM) definition of a level 1 ICU. We grouped items into essential care bundles for service readiness compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results From the 13 hospitals, we analysed data from 39 medical ward staff members through staffing, infrastructure, equipment, and systems domains. No medical wards met the WFSICCM definition of level 1 ICU. The most common barriers in district hospital medical wards compared to central hospital wards were stock-outs (29%, Cl: 21% to 44% vs 6%, Cl: 0% to 13%) and personnel shortages (40%, Cl: 24% to 67% vs 29%, Cl: 16% to 52%) but central hospital wards reported a higher proportion of training barriers (68%, Cl: 52% to 73% vs 45%, Cl: 29% to 60%). No differences were statistically significant. Conclusion Despite current gaps in resources to consistently care for critically ill patients in medical wards, this study shows that with modest inputs, the provision of simple life-saving critical care is within reach. Required inputs for care provision can be informed from this study.

Keywords