Equipment leasing plan timely boost in health service delivery
Modern X-ray equipment at the Kakamega County Referral Hospital’s radiology department. PHOTO | FILE
After a lot of heated discussion on the merits and demerits of the medical equipment leasing deal at its launch, some sceptical views were given including some from this column.
However, over the last few months I have visited several hospitals that were equipped under the deal to try gauge the impact. In particular the aspects of the radiology unit under GE Healthcare and the theatre equipment.
Three notable observations point at a good job for those implementing the project, especially the radiology component.
Judging from the three hospitals I visited, the GE HealthCare team branding concept has turned what was erstwhile drab looking radiology units into areas appealing both to the eyes and also the nose. The radiology units now have an almost corporate-like look.
Secondly, the incorporation of the tele-radiology facilities allowing radiologists to report from elsewhere as long as they have an Internet link has helped add the “expert eye” opinion previously missing from most hospitals.
This has no doubt improved the quality of diagnostic accuracy and by extension medical or surgical interventions deduced from these.
Though no statistics have been released by GE and the government under whose mandate this project falls, it would be a good idea to quantify the percentage of X-rays and mammograms reported now as opposed to the past.
This would be a measure of the telemedicine intervention achieving a set objective. Of notable concern though is the lack of appreciation of the rural health setup under which most of our public health system operate in.
Our X-ray and imaging referral system still relies on patients returning home with their X-rays to the dispensaries and health centres which will still remain the focal point of care for many rural patients.
Without imaging printout films, subsequent follow-ups are hard for primary contact health workers.
A recommendation would be to factor in a way where such health workers can also remotely access these records once patients return home.
An assessment of most rural dispensaries shows that very few have computers. As such X-rays stored in digital formats cannot be accessed.
A point of observation though to the managers of the scheme, the equipment itself is not the main aim of the interventions. Of the three hospitals visited, none had adequate staff to work some of the machines.
Two were only staffed by one person, meaning maximum utility could not be achieved with some never having been used.
Theatre-wise there seems to be consensus too that the new equipment was in good standing. The anaesthetic units are upgrades and patient monitoring pre-op and post-op is better at least equipment wise.
A few things could have been done differently though, such as factoring in existing equipment on the ground before going ahead to deliver to avoid duplication.
Some hospitals have three sets of equipment they do not need or already had and none of what they would have preferred to have.
Going forward, the government needs to consider the capacity constraints faced from staffing deficits and incorporate these into the budgets allocated for the project.
It would also be better to have each facility allocated an amount by the national government and then choose equipment worth that sum.
Otherwise, expensive equipment will be available but not optimally used to benefit citizens.
For instance, and quite strangely from the crafters of the scheme, an emphasis was on the imaging side ignoring the glaring deficit in the cardiology intervention equipment aspect in our hospitals.
