GAM Among OTP cured

Hi Anonymous,

I am unable to read the table properly since the columns appear to have no headings and I dont understand how you arrived at the calculations of the percentages. Is it possible to resubmit your question with the complete column headings?

1. You mention children as having been cured and then relapsed, however you say that when 'examining their anthropometric data' there are several that are still acutely malnourished. If this is a new measurement of a child previously discharged cured then the reasons for relapse will be dependent on prevailing conditions of disease, food insecurity or other underlying factor (see the UNICEF conceptual framework for malnutrition). Identifying the causes may be possible from examining the history on admission (e.g. diarrhoea, cough, fever, inadequate complementary feeding practices etc.). If, however, this is a re-examination of the data from the OTP card then it would appear to be a failure to adhere to the appropriate discharge criteria and incorrect reporting. 

2. I may be able to better answer the second question regarding 'real cure rate'  if you send a complete table. Many programmes use height data from admission only as a way of minimising measurement errors, so if this is the method recommended by your national guidelines then you probably needn't worry about this being the reason for 'relapse'. If you think there may be a problem with height measurements then check the measurement procedures used by OTP staff. 

3. With the information available:

a) Check that your OTP staff understand and apply the correct discharge protocols

b) Check the staff perform measurements correctly

c) Check staff are completing the reporting forms correctly

d) Examine the child's history on the OTP card as reported by the carer for possible reasons for their admission. Crosscheck with other relapses for each district for common underlying causes

e) Map where the relapses are coming from and visit the relevant communities / village leaders to discuss any potential issues / underlying causes & solutions

I hope this helps,

Paul

Hi Anonymous. 

I agree with Mark, these are extremely high percentages for them to be relapsed cases. To put this into context, we monitored children closely for 3 months after recovery and found 1.9% relapse.

It sounds more likely that:

(i) the criteria for discharge are not being implemented correctly or

(ii) measurements are not being done correctly and / or

(iii) reporting is inaccurate

or some combination of the above. It is odd that the problem is widespread across the districts. This would suggest the problem is more systematic and that you may need to check the training materials and speak with programme supervisors about what support is given to staff. 

Paul