AIM: To describe the process of follow-up in primary care facilities where the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) strategy was implemented. IMCI was developed by WHO and UNICEF as an integrated approach to manage sick children under 5 y of age and aims to reduce mortality and morbidity. METHODS: From August 2001 to February 2002, 229 sick children who had a health condition included in the IMCI case management guidelines were seen in six family healthcare facilities in Brazil. We analysed the care provided to 153 children who were recommended for a 2- or 5-d follow-up visit. Children who did not return were visited and assessed at home. RESULTS: Only 87 children (56.9%) timely returned for follow-up: 70 had improved, eight presented the same health conditions, five were worse and four had a new problem. The main reasons given for not returning for follow-up were: the child had improved (35.1%) and other family priorities (47.4%). Home visits showed that, although most children had improved (n=49), some had a new health problem and one child was sick enough to be referred. Prescription of antibiotics was associated with increased probability of returning for a follow-up visit (RR =1.64 [1.22-2.20], p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Adherence to follow-up was just over 50%, mostly because the condition had already resolved, but some children were still sick and needed intervention. Training on counselling on the recognition of danger signs and when to return for a follow-up visit must be reinforced.
AIM: To describe the process of follow-up in primary care facilities where the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) strategy was implemented. IMCI was developed by WHO and UNICEF as an integrated approach to manage sick children under 5 y of age and aims to reduce mortality and morbidity. METHODS: From August 2001 to February 2002, 229 sick children who had a health condition included in the IMCI case management guidelines were seen in six family healthcare facilities in Brazil. We analysed the care provided to 153 children who were recommended for a 2- or 5-d follow-up visit. Children who did not return were visited and assessed at home. RESULTS: Only 87 children (56.9%) timely returned for follow-up: 70 had improved, eight presented the same health conditions, five were worse and four had a new problem. The main reasons given for not returning for follow-up were: the child had improved (35.1%) and other family priorities (47.4%). Home visits showed that, although most children had improved (n=49), some had a new health problem and one child was sick enough to be referred. Prescription of antibiotics was associated with increased probability of returning for a follow-up visit (RR =1.64 [1.22-2.20], p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Adherence to follow-up was just over 50%, mostly because the condition had already resolved, but some children were still sick and needed intervention. Training on counselling on the recognition of danger signs and when to return for a follow-up visit must be reinforced.