BackgroundKnowledge regarding the best approaches to improving the quality of healthcare and their implementation is lacking in many resource-limited settings. The Medical Department of Kamuzu Central Hospital in Malawi set out to improve the quality of care provided to its patients and establish itself as a recognized centre in teaching, operations research and supervision of district hospitals. Efforts in the past to achieve these objectives were short-lived, and largely unsuccessful. Against this background, a situational analysis was performed to aid the Medical Department to define and prioritize its quality improvement activities.MethodsA mix of quantitative and qualitative methods was applied using checklists for observed practice, review of registers, key informant interviews and structured patient interviews. The mixed methods comprised triangulation by including the perspectives of the clients, healthcare providers from within and outside the department, and the field researcher’s perspectives by means of document review and participatory observation.ResultsHuman resource shortages, staff attitudes and shortage of equipment were identified as major constraints to patient care, and the running of the Medical Department. Processes, including documentation in registers and files and communication within and across cadres of staff were also found to be insufficient and thus undermining the effort of staff and management in establishing a sustained high quality culture. Depending on their past experience and knowledge, the stakeholder interviewees revealed different perspectives and expectations of quality healthcare and the intended quality improvement process.ConclusionsEstablishing a quality improvement process in resource-limited settings is an enormous task, considering the host of challenges that these facilities face. The steps towards changing the status quo for improved quality care require critical self-assessment, the willingness to change as well as determined commitment and contributions from clients, staff and management.

Objective Ivermectin is safe and widely used for treating helminth infections. It also kills arthropods feeding on treated subjects, including malaria vectors. Thus, ivermectin mass drug administration as an additional tool for malaria control is being evaluated by WHO. As in vitro data, animal experiments and epidemiological observations suggest that ivermectin has a direct effect on the liver stages of the malaria parasite, this study was designed to assess the prophylactic effect of ivermectin on Plasmodium falciparum controlled human malaria infection. Methods A total of 4 volunteers were randomised to placebo, and 8 volunteers were randomised to receive ivermectin 0.4 mg/kg, orally, once 2 h before being experimentally infected intravenously with 3200 P. falciparum sporozoites. The primary endpoint was time to parasitaemia detected by positive thick blood smear; RT‐qPCR was performed in parallel. Results All but one volunteer became thick blood smear positive between day 11 and day 12 after infection, and there was no significant effect of ivermectin on parasitaemia. Conclusion Ivermectin – at the dose used – has no clinically relevant activity against the pre‐erythrocytic stages of P. falciparum.

No abstract

The waterjet pressure should not be over 4 bar during polishing of the posterior capsule.