Why the study?
A screening algorithm was needed to assist community health workers in identifying surgical site infections after cesarean section in rural Africa.
Does a community health worker-administered screening algorithm accurately identify surgical site infections in women post-cesarean section?
Does a community health worker-administered screening algorithm accurately identify surgical site infections in women post-cesarean section?
A simple screening algorithm for post-cesarean surgical site infections showed good predictive features but had lower sensitivity when administered by community health workers, indicating a need for improved diagnostic methods.
CHW screening shows moderate accuracy but insufficient sensitivity for routine adoption; leaves open need for refined algorithms and prospective validation.
Background: We aimed to develop and validate a screening algorithm to assist community health workers (CHWs) in identifying surgical site infections (SSIs) after cesarean section (c-section) in rural Africa. Methods: Patients were adult women who underwent c-section at a Rwandan rural district hospital between March and October 2017. A CHW administered a nine-item clinical questionnaire 10 ± 3 days post-operatively. Independently, a general practitioner (GP) administered the same questionnaire and assessed SSI presence by physical examination. The GP's SSI diagnosis was used as the gold standard. Using a simplified Classification and Regression Tree analysis, we identified a subset of screening questions with maximum sensitivity for the GP and CHW and evaluated the subset's sensitivity and specificity in a validation dataset. Then, we compared the subset's results when implemented in the community by CHWs with health center-reported SSI. Results: Of the 596 women enrolled, 525 (88.1%) completed the clinical questionnaire. The combination of questions concerning fever, pain, and discolored drainage maximized sensitivity for both the GPs (sensitivity = 96.8%; specificity = 85.6%) and CHWs (sensitivity = 87.1%; specificity = 73.8%). In the validation dataset, this subset had sensitivity of 95.2% and specificity of 83.3% for the GP-administered questions and sensitivity of 76.2% and specificity of 81.4% for the CHW-administered questions. In the community screening, the overall percent agreement between CHW and health center diagnoses was 81.1% (95% confidence interval: 77.2%–84.6%). Conclusions: We identified a subset of questions that had good predictive features for SSI, but its sensitivity was lower when administered by CHWs in a clinical setting, and it performed poorly in the community. Methods to improve diagnostic ability, including training or telemedicine, must be explored.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cherian et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: