Background Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients’ fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. Methods We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. Results Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients’ conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.

BackgroundThe Integrated Infectious Diseases Capacity Building Evaluation (IDCAP) designed two interventions: Integrated Management of Infectious Disease (IMID) training program and On-Site Support (OSS). We evaluated their effects on 23 facility performance indicators, including malaria case management.MethodologyIMID, a three-week training with two follow-up booster courses, was for two mid- level practitioners, primarily clinical officers and registered nurses, from 36 primary care facilities. OSS was two days of training and continuous quality improvement activities for nine months at 18 facilities, to which all health workers were invited to participate. Facilities were randomized as clusters 1∶1 to parallel OSS “arm A” or control “arm B”. Outpatient data on four malaria case management indicators were collected for 14 months. Analysis compared changes before and during the interventions within arms (relative risk = RR). The effect of OSS was measured with the difference in changes across arms (ratio of RR = RRR).FindingsThe proportion of patients with suspected malaria for whom a diagnostic test result for malaria was recorded decreased in arm B (adjusted RR (aRR) = 0.97; 99%CI: 0.82,1.14) during IMID, but increased 25% in arm A (aRR = 1.25; 99%CI:0.94, 1.65) during IMID and OSS relative to baseline; (aRRR = 1.28; 99%CI:0.93, 1.78). The estimated proportion of patients that received an appropriate antimalarial among those prescribed any antimalarial increased in arm B (aRR = 1.09; 99%CI: 0.87, 1.36) and arm A (aRR = 1.50; 99%CI: 1.04, 2.17); (aRRR = 1.38; 99%CI: 0.89, 2.13). The proportion of patients with a negative diagnostic test result for malaria prescribed an antimalarial decreased in arm B (aRR = 0.96; 99%CI: 0.84, 1.10) and arm A (aRR = 0.67; 99%CI: 0.46, 0.97); (aRRR = 0.70; 99%CI: 0.48, 1.00). The proportion of patients with a positive diagnostic test result for malaria prescribed an antibiotic did not change significantly in either arm.InterpretationThe combination of IMID and OSS was associated with statistically significant improvements in malaria case management.

No abstract

BackgroundTo address the shortage of health information personnel within Botswana, an innovative human resources approach was taken. University graduates without training or experience in health information or health sciences were hired and provided with on-the-job training and mentoring to create a new cadre of health worker: the district Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Officer. This article describes the early outcomes, achievements, and challenges from this initiative.MethodsData were collected from the district M&E Officers over a 2-year period and included a skills assessment at baseline and 12 months, pre- and post-training tests, interviews during stakeholder site visits, a survey of achievements, focus group discussions, and an attrition assessment.ResultsAn average of 2.7 mentoring visits were conducted for M&E Officers in each district. There were five training sessions over 18 months. Knowledge scores significantly increased (p < 0.05) during the three trainings in which pre/post tests were administered. Over 1 year, there were significant improvements (p < 0.05) in self-rated skills related to computer literacy, checking data validity, implementing data quality procedures, using data to support program planning, proposing indicators, and writing M&E reports. Out of the 34 district M&E Officers interviewed during site visits, most were conducting facility visits to review data (27/34; 79%), comparing data sets over time (31/34; 91%), backing up data (32/34; 94%), and analyzing data (32/34; 94%). Common challenges included late facility reports (28/34; 82%), lack of transportation (22/34; 65%), inaccurate facility reports (10/34; 29%), and colleagues’ misunderstanding of M&E (10/34; 29%). Six posts were vacated in the first year (6/51; 12%). A total of 49 Officers completed the achievements survey; of these, common accomplishments related to improvements in data management (35/49; 71%), data quality (31/49; 63%), data use (29/49; 59%), and capacity development (26/49; 53%).ConclusionsThe development of a cadre of district M&E Officers has contributed positively to the health information system in Botswana. In the absence of tertiary training related to health information, on-the-job training and mentoring of university graduates can be an effective approach for developing a new professional cadre of M&E expertise and for strengthening capacity within a national health system.