Background Adherence to local standard guidelines is seen as a pragmatic way to measure and improve the quality of future prescribing in ambulatory care to reduce morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Objectives To evaluate adherence to the Ghana Standard Treatment Guidelines (STGs) for the empirical antibiotic treatment of ambulatory care patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in a region in Ghana and factors associated with it. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a checklist to collect data from the hospital electronic database, which included sociodemographic details, payment type and clinical information of all ambulatory patients attending Keta Municipal Hospital, diagnosed and managed for CAP from September 2018 to January 2019. Prescriptions were assessed for adherence to the Ghana STG based on choice of antibiotics. A χ2 test and multiple logistic regression were subsequently conducted. Results A total of 1929 patient records with diagnosis of CAP within the study period at the ambulatory clinic were identified. The overall rate of adherence to the Ghana STG was 32.50% (n = 627). From the patient records collected, 62.50% were female, 41.84% were children (0–12 years), and 97.15% had a valid national health insurance status. Adherence was associated with the duration of antibiotic prescribing, number of additional antibiotics prescribed and some patients’ clinical characteristics. Conclusions The rate of adherence to Ghana STG among the study population was low. Efforts must be made to train and encourage prescribers to follow empirical guidelines to reduce inappropriate selection of antibiotics in the ambulatory care settings.

A standardised Global Point Prevalence Survey (PPS) tool was used to determine the antimicrobial prescription pattern in the Ho Teaching Hospital on two separate occasions in a total of 14 wards in the hospital, including dedicated wards for paediatrics and neonates. Manually collected and anonymised data were entered, validated, analysed and reported using a web-based global PPS application. With 147 and 153 patients considered in the July 2019 and January 2020 surveys, respectively, 98 patients (66.7%) and 84 patients (54.9%) had received one or more antimicrobials. The prevalence of antimicrobial use in the adult wards was 64.3% (72/112) and 53.4% (63/118) in the first and second surveys, respectively. The prevalence in the paediatric wards was 60.0% (12/20) and 62.5% (10/16), respectively, in the two surveys, while that in the neonatal wards was 93.3% (14/15) and 57.9% (11/19), respectively. β−lactams were the most used antibiotics in both periods. Malaria was the most common diagnosis requiring the use of antimicrobials in July 2019, accounting for 19.4% of the diagnoses, whereas in January 2020, it was skin and soft-tissue conditions (28.1%). This reflects a seasonal association between malaria and rainfall patterns. Out of the antimicrobials prescribed during each of the survey periods, 95% were used for empirical treatment, and this could be attributed to a number of reasons, including logistical challenges, among others, that require further exploration in the context of local, national and international policy recommendations.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant problem in global health today, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where antimicrobial stewardship programmes are yet to be successfully implemented. We established a partnership between AMR pharmacists from a UK NHS hospital and in Ho Teaching Hospital with the aim of enhancing antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and practice among healthcare providers through an educational intervention. We employed a mixed-method approach that included an initial survey on knowledge and awareness before and after training, followed by qualitative interviews with healthcare providers conducted six months after delivery of training. This study was carried out in two phases in Ho Teaching Hospital with healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, medical doctors, nurses and medical laboratory scientists. Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. In the first phase, we surveyed 50 healthcare providers, including nurses (33%), pharmacists (29%) and biomedical scientists (23%). Of these, 58% of participants had engaged in continuous professional development on AMR/AMS, and above 95% demonstrated good knowledge on the general use of antibiotics. A total of 18 participants, which included four medical doctors, five pharmacists, four nurses, two midwives and three biomedical scientists, were interviewed in the second phase and demonstrated greater awareness of AMS practices, particularly the role of education for patients, as well as healthcare professionals. We found that knowledge and practice with AMS was markedly improved six months after the training session. There is limited practice of AMS in LMICs; however, through AMR-focused training, we demonstrated improved AMS skills and practice among healthcare providers in Ho Teaching Hospital. There is a need for continuous AMR training sessions for healthcare professionals in resource-limited settings.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant problem in global health today, particularly in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) where antimicrobial stewardship programmes are yet to be successfully implemented. We established a partnership between AMR pharmacists leads from a UK NHS hospital and in Ho Teaching Hospital with the aim to by enhance antimicrobial stewardship knowledge and practice among healthcare providers through an educational intervention. We employed a mixed method approach including an initial before and after training survey on knowledge and awareness, followed by qualitative interviews with healthcare providers conducted six months after delivery of training. This study was carried out in Ho teaching hospital with 18 healthcare professionals including pharmacists, medical doctors, nurses and medical laboratory scientists. Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. In the first phase, we surveyed 50 health care providers including nurses (33%), pharmacists (29%) and biomedical scientists (23%). Of these, 58% of participants had engaged in continuous professional development on AMR/AMS, and above 95% demonstrated good knowledge on the general use of antibiotics. A total of 18 participants, which included 4 medical doctors, 5 pharmacists, 4 nurses, 2 midwives and 3 biomedical scientists, were interviewed in the second stage and demonstrated greater awareness of AMS practices, particularly the role of education for patients as well as healthcare professionals. We found that knowledge and practice with AMS was markedly improved six months after the training session. There is limited practice of AMS in LMICs, however through AMR focused training we demonstrate improved AMS skills and practice among health care providers in Ho Teaching hospital. There is need for continuous AMR training sessions for health care professionals in resource limited settings.

Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is associated with microthrombi ,mainly in the kidneys. It may be classified as typical HUS or atypical HUS (aHUS) .Majority of HUS occur in children (usually at 6 months of age), as a sequela of shigella infection. In aHUS, a genetic or sporadic insult causes dysfunction in the complement cascade, leading to complement deposition on endothelial cells, thickening of arterioles and capillaries, and endothelial swelling and detachment. Consequently, there is formation of obstructive thrombi in the vessel lumina and shearing of red blood cells, creating schistiocytes, that results in the triad of Coombs negative hemolytic anemia, renal impairment, and thrombocytopenia. We report a rare case of a 43-year-old black male who reacted to the 2nd booster dose (some 7 months after the 1st) of Astra Zeneca Covid-19 vaccine with aHUS. He had ophthalmoplegia, occipital headaches and suicidal ideation which all resolved on high dose oral prednisolone. The Astra Zeneca vaccine which uses a chimpanzee platform is the only one reported to have similar reactions and this is important to note and manage such potentially life threatening rare adverse event.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is rapidly spreading throughout the world after emerging in China in December 2019. Currently, there are no approved treatments for COVID-19 based on large clinical trial data, and hence, management involves infection prevention and control measures and supportive care. With anecdotal reports and in vitro studies suggesting that certain medicines already in use for treatment of other conditions could be viable treatment options, there has been an increased demand for these therapies which could have adverse consequences on patients and healthcare systems. Toxicity from these medicines resulting from a mad rush for them at community pharmacies and pressure on physicians to prescribe for individuals who do not have the infection are worth noting. Furthermore, the indiscriminate use of these medicines could result in viral resistance as well as acute shortage such that patients who routinely take them for other conditions may not get them.

No abstract

This study evaluated physicians’ perception and diagnosis of intestinal parasitic infections (IPI) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. This cross-sectional survey used a Google form questionnaire distributed online. Demographic and clinical practice information was solicited, including if “IPI was considered as a diagnosis in the last patient seen,” “if stool investigation was requested among the last patients seen,” and physicians’ perception of the burden of IPI in the country. Using Pearson chi-square and multivariate logistic regression analysis, we tested the significance of the associations of the job cadre of the physicians and their perception of the IPI burden with consideration of IPI as a diagnosis in the last patient seen, request for stool investigation in the last patient seen, and overall frequency of the request for stool investigation. Ultimately, 184 physicians responded. The majority agreed to “often seeing patients with GI symptoms” (156, 84.7%), “not considering IPI among the last patient seen” (106, 57.6%), and “not requesting stool investigation among the last patient seen with symptoms” (136, 73.9%). House officers (81, 44.2%) constituted the highest proportion of physicians who considered IPI as a diagnosis among the last patient seen (39, 48.1%, p = 0.05 ). Most physicians (138, 75%) considered IPI as a burden in Ghana. They constituted significant proportions of the physicians who considered IPI as a diagnosis among their last patients seen (65, 83.3%, p = 0.02 ) and were twice more likely to consider IPI as a diagnosis among the last patients seen than their colleagues who did not consider IPI as a burden in Ghana (AOR 2.26, p = 0.04 ). The consideration of IPI as a diagnosis among patients with GI symptoms and request for stool investigations was low among physicians in this study. Further engagements with physicians in Ghana are needed to help improve their diagnosis of IPI in patients with GI symptoms.