IntroductionThe prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rising in low- and middle-income countries, including Kenya, disproportionately to the rest of the world. Our objective was to quantify patient payments to obtain NCD screening, diagnosis, and treatment services in the public and private sector in Kenya and evaluate patients’ ability to pay for the services.Methods and findingsWe collected payment data on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, breast and cervical cancer, and respiratory diseases from Kenyatta National Hospital, the main tertiary public hospital, and the Kibera South Health Center—a public outpatient facility, and private sector practitioners and hospitals. We developed detailed treatment frameworks for each NCD and used an itemization cost approach to estimate payments. Patient affordability metrics were derived from Kenyan government surveys and national datasets.Results compare public and private costs in U.S. dollars. NCD screening costs ranged from $4 to $36, while diagnostic procedures, particularly for breast and cervical cancer, were substantially more expensive. Annual hypertension medication costs ranged from $26 to $234 and $418 to $987 in public and private facilities, respectively. Stroke admissions ($1,874 versus $16,711) and dialysis for chronic kidney disease ($5,338 versus $11,024) were among the most expensive treatments. Cervical and breast cancer treatment cost for stage III (curative approach) was about $1,500 in public facilities and more than $7,500 in the private facilities. A large proportion of Kenyans aged 15 to 49 years do not have health insurance, which makes NCD services unaffordable for most people given the overall high cost of services relative to income (average household expenditure per adult is $413 per annum).ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in patient costs between the public and private sectors. Most NCD diagnosis and treatment costs, even in the public sector, represent a substantial economic burden that can result in catastrophic expenditures.

Background. Early detection and prompt access to quality treatment and palliative care are critical for good breast cancer outcomes. Interventions require understanding of identified barriers and facilitators to care. A hermeneutic phenomenological approach, whose purpose is to describe feelings and lived experiences of participants, can expand the existing scope of understanding of barriers and facilitators in accessing breast cancer care in Kenya. Methods. This is qualitative research applying focus groups and a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to identify barriers and facilitators to breast cancer care from the knowledge, perceptions, and lived experiences of women with and without a diagnosis of breast cancer in Kenya. We conducted four focus group discussions with 6-11 women aged 30-60 years in each. Groups were classified according to breast cancer diagnosis and socioeconomic status. The transcribed discussions were coded independently by two investigators. Together they reviewed the codes and identified themes.Results. The key barriers were costs, inadequate knowledge, distance to health facilities, communication with health providers, medicines stockouts, long waiting periods, limited or no counseling at diagnosis, patient vulnerability, and limited access to rehabilitation items. Facilitators were dependable social support, periodical access to subsidized awareness, and early detection services and friendly caregivers. We found no marked differences in perceptions between groups by socioeconomic status. Conclusion. There is need for targeted awareness and education for health providers and the public, early detection services with onsite counseling and cost mitigation. Support from the society and religious organizations and persons may be leveraged as adjuncts to conventional management. Further interpretations are encouraged. The Oncologist 2019;24:1549-1556 Implications for Practice: Continuing cancer education for health providers in technical skills for early detection, treatment, and survivorship care, as well as nontechnical skills like communication, and an understanding of their patients' preferences and socioeconomic status may guide individualized management plans and positively affect patient experiences. Patients and the general public also need education on cancer to avoid misconceptions and inaccuracies that perpetuate fear, confusion, delayed presentation for treatment, and stigma. Critical analysis of the cancer care value chain and processes, development, and implementation of interventions to reduce costs while streamlining processes may improve client experiences. and treatment services [2]. Although several studies in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), including Kenya, have identified barriers and facilitators to early detection, diagnosis, and treatment, it is not clear if the list is exhaustive. Barriers identified include Correspondence: Robai Gakunga, B.V.M., M.B.A.,

No abstract

Introduction: The chemotherapy use process is potentially risky for cancer patients. Vincristine, a "High Alert" medicine, has been associated with fatal but preventable medication errors. There is a need to improve the use of vincristine especially in lower and middle income countries with constraints with resources and adequate approaches to the administration of cancer medicines; however a rising prevalence of cancer cases. These concerns can be addressed by performing proactive risk assessments using Healthcare Failure Mode Effect Analysis (HFMEA) and implementing the findings. Methods: A multidisciplinary health team driven by pharmacists identified and evaluated potential failure modes based on a vincristine use process flow diagram using a hazard scoring matrix in a leading referral hospital in Kenya. Results: The processes evaluated were: prescribing, preparation and dispensing, transportation and storage, administration and monitoring of the use of vincristine. 77 failure modes were identified over the 3 month study period, of which 25 were classified as high risk. Thirteen were adequately covered by existing control measures while 12 including one combined mode required new strategies. Two of the failure modes were single-point weaknesses. Recommendations were subsequently made for improving the administration of vincristine. Conclusions: HFMEA is a useful tool to identify improvements to medication safety and reduction of patient harm. The HFMEA process brings together the multidisciplinary team involved in patient care in actively identifying potential failure modes and owning the recommendations made, which are now being actively followed up in this hospital. Pharmacists are a key part of this process.

No abstract