1 / 10

DENGUE VALIDATION STUDY Country site :INDONESIA

(Sardjito Hospital & Depok I Health Center). DENGUE VALIDATION STUDY Country site :INDONESIA. Banguntapan. BANTUL. Kasihan. BANTUL. BANTUL. (Sewon HC). Sewon. BANTUL. Population and Dengue Incidence by Proposed Study Location. ACTIVITY. Participant s. Study elements.

kiril
Download Presentation

DENGUE VALIDATION STUDY Country site :INDONESIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. (Sardjito Hospital & Depok I Health Center) DENGUE VALIDATION STUDYCountry site :INDONESIA Banguntapan BANTUL Kasihan BANTUL BANTUL (Sewon HC) Sewon BANTUL

  2. Population and Dengue Incidence by Proposed Study Location

  3. ACTIVITY

  4. Participants

  5. Study elements • Retrospective chart review • Questionnaires • Focus Group Discussions

  6. Materialsused POSTER ALGORITHM CLINICAL GUIDE

  7. Results Chart Review: former classification vs revised classification

  8. Strengths of revised classification Simple and easy to use Safer for patients Useful for triage of patients Promotes early diagnosis and management Weaknesses of revised classification Too qualitative → no quantitative thresholds Can lead to overdiagnosis → excess hospital admission Not yet in line with existing systems (e.g. ICD, clinical audit, payment schemes) FGD (1)

  9. FGD (2) • Strengths of revised algorithm • More aggressive in management of dengue with warning signs → shorter hospital stay • Patient education messages very useful • Weaknesses of revised algorithm • Too conservative for shock management • Too risky for patient outcome • Too risky for hospital in legal aspect

  10. General recommendations • Reconsider adoption of quantitative parameters • Reconsider guidance for shock management • Facilitate implementation • Stronger involvement of professional associations • Strengthened training design (e.g. interactive CD-ROM) • Synchronization with ICD, billing system and clinical audits

More Related