4.3 Article

The functioning of oxygen concentrators in resource-limited settings: a situation assessment in two countries

Journal

Publisher

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.10.0544

Keywords

oxygen concentrators; child health; acute respiratory infection; hypoxaemia; hospital care

Funding

  1. WHO's Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development
  2. Australian Government's Department of Health and Ageing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

SETTING: The paediatric wards of hospitals in Malawi and Mongolia. OBJECTIVE: To describe oxygen concentrator functioning in two countries with widespread, long-term use of concentrators as a primary source of oxygen for treating children. DESIGN: A systematic assessment of concentrators in the paediatric wards of 15 hospitals in Malawi and nine hospitals in Mongolia. RESULTS: Oxygen concentrators had been installed for a median of 48 months (interquartile range [IQR] 6-60) and 36 months (IQR 12-96), respectively, prior to the evaluation in Malawi and Mongolia. Concentrators were the primary source of oxygen. Three quarters of the concentrators assessed in Malawi (28/36) and half those assessed in Mongolia (13/25) were functional. Concentrators were found to remain functional with up to 30000 h of use. However, several concentrators were functioning very poorly despite limited use. Concentrators from a number of different manufacturers were evaluated, and there was marked variation in performance between brands. Inadequate resources for maintenance were reported in both countries. CONCLUSION: Years after installation of oxygen concentrators, many machines were still functioning, indicating that widespread use can be sustained in resource-limited settings. However, concentrator performance varied substantially. Procurement of high-quality and appropriate equipment is critical, and resources should be made available for ongoing maintenance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available