4.6 Article

Task Shifting the Management of Non-Communicable Diseases to Nurses in Kibera, Kenya: Does It Work?

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145634

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Union, MSF
  2. Department for International Development (DFID)
  3. WHO

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In sub-Saharan Africa there is an increasing need to leverage available health care workers to provide care for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study was conducted to evaluate adherence to Medecins Sans Frontieres clinical protocols when the care of five stable NCDs (hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, epilepsy, asthma, and sickle cell) was shifted from clinical officers to nurses. Methods Descriptive, retrospective review of routinely collected clinic data from two integrated primary health care facilities within an urban informal settlement, Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya (May to August 2014). Results There were 3,554 consultations (2025 patients); 733 (21%) were by nurses out of which 725 met the inclusion criteria among 616 patients. Hypertension (64%, 397/616) was the most frequent NCD followed by asthma (17%, 106/616) and diabetes mellitus (15%, 95/616). Adherence to screening questions ranged from 65% to 86%, with an average of 69%. Weight and blood pressure measurements were completed in 89% and 96% of those required. Laboratory results were reviewed in 91% of indicated visits. Laboratory testing per NCD protocols was higher in those with hypertension (88%) than diabetesmellitus (67%) upon review. Only 17 (2%) consultations were referred back to clinical officers. Conclusion Nurses are able to adhere to protocols for managing stable NCD patients based on clear and standardized protocols and guidelines, thus paving the way towards task shifting of NCD care to nurses to help relieve the significant healthcare gap in developing countries.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available