[Service quality assurance by death analysis during the 2004 cholera outbreak in Douala]

Morbidity and mortality conferences (MMC) are used today in most medical departments as a tool for quality assurance as well as an educational tool. We introduced MMC with regard to cholera lethality during the 2004 cholera outbreak in Douala. The Delegation of Public Health (DPH) in Douala, coordinating body for the combat against the epidemic, decided to open cholera treatment units (CTU) in fourteen hospitals, equally distributed over the town. The CTUs' personnel was retrained on diagnostic and treatment protocols, procedures to follow and on management tools. To assure the quality of services, a provincial supervision team was constituted for the close follow-up of the CTUs. The supervision team had two main tasks, i.e. on-the-job training of the personnel involved in the care of cholera patients and systematic meetings whenever a cholera death occurred during hospital stay in order to analyse the reasons behind the death. We communicate our experience with these systematic meetings inspired by the MMC and aiming at the analysis of cholera deaths in the CTUs. Immediately after a cholera death in one of the CTUs, a meeting was organised by a member of the supervision team, assisted by the entire CTU team. During the meeting, the patient's file was re-examined as were the decisions token, the actions undertaken by the personnel, and the difficulties met. Alternative decisions and actions were discussed and conclusions based on the lessons learned formulated. Of all meetings minutes were kept. A monthly provincial meeting, joining all CTU teams, was organized for discussion of the minutes, exchange of experiences, and, eventually, adapting of protocols, procedures, and management tools. Five thousand and twenty cholera patients were notified during an 8-months-period (January-August 2004), 69 (1.4%) of the patients died, amongst them 8 before the declaration of the epidemic and 4 before hospital admission. Eleven CTUs out of a total of 14 organised 15 meetings concerning 39 (68%) of the 57 hospital based cholera deaths. Eight to eighteen CTU team members participated (with 2-5 physicians according to the CTU) and the meetings lasted between 1 and 2 hours. The meetings proceeded in a systematic way: after controlling for the presence of all CTU team members concerned, the patient's file was read together, team members were asked to elucidate what did not figure in the file, everybody was asked for commentaries and suggestions, the supervisor made a synthesis of the discussion, and, finally, conclusions and recommendations were formulated. The minutes of the meeting were sent to the DPH. The conclusions and recommendations aimed at the reception of the patients and his admission circuit, the diagnostic procedures, therapy, the case definition, the evaluation of the severity of the patient's status at the moment of admission, the surveillance during evolution of the patient, the respect of the therapeutical protocols, and the management of the CTU. In spite of the organisational, psychological, and socio-cultural difficulties, the meetings went off apparently without major reservations in the minds of the participants. These meetings analysing the reasons behind a case of cholera dying in a CTU gave the opportunity to discuss performance, to identify problems, and to search together for solutions. They were thought of as a tool for improving the quality of the service. Looking at the low over-all lethality rate during this major epidemic they seemed to have, at least partially succeeded.