Letter on standards for severe malnutrition mangement, by Kiross Tefera, with response by Saskia van der Kam

Dear Field Exchange,

First my gratefulness goes to Professor Michael Golden and Yvonne Grellety for their detailed and scientific article based on the research outcome of about 8500 children comparing the observed to expected mortality rate done in different therapeutic feeding institutions (Field exchange, issue 15, April 15, pp. 12-13).

Second I would like to thank MSF for sharing their field experience on therapeutic milks (F-75 and F-100) with comments on using F-75 (Ibid. pp. 9-11).

My comment is on the MSF article, Van der Kam et al about their list of justification not to use F-75 always. I have listed their justifications below and tried to forward my opinion.

  1. "MSF has found ultimately there is no clear correlation between F-75 and low mortality rate."
    Using F-75 only is not a guarantee to achieve low mortality rates unless you improve all your procedures. Let's say, if the appropriate re-hydration practice and correct use of ORS, RESOMAL, and IV fluids are not in place, you can't expect low mortality rate. In conclusion, whenever we accept a new approach we have to review the other procedures as well. Also it would be useful if MSF could present data on observed and expected mortality in the centres they refer to, using the Prudhon index. This allows valid comparison of death rates at various stages of treatment and between centres.
  2. "MSF believes that the use of one type of therapeutic milk is more efficient during nutritional emergencies."
    In my opinion, we can't compare the cost of human life with the efficiency of a project (manpower, money, time.). MSF agreed the theoretical advantage of F-75 and recommend using when there is high number of kwashiorkor, many adults fail to improve, and mortality rate in a TFC is high. If the advantaged of F-75 is agreed in principle, why do wait until there is high mortality. We should respect the value of human being instead of calculating the simplicity or efficiency of using F-75 unless there is scientific evidence.
  3. "It eliminates the possibility of confusion (e.g. mistaking one milk for the other during preparation, prescription, and handouts)".
    This is usually resulted due to poor training for the staff. If the staffs are properly trained, there will not be a question of confusion.
    To make it simple, we can use the following methods:

There should be eight meals given in Phase 1 (meals should be given every three hours). For example, the timetable for F-75 is 6am, 9am, 12am, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm, 12pm and 3am.

The schedule for F-100 depends on the number of meals per 24 hours. Where five or six meals are given in a 24 period, to avoid overlapping with F-75, we can schedule meal times before or after F-75. For example, start F-100 one and a half hours after F-75. The timetable for F-100 would then be 7.30am, 11.30am, 3.30pm, 7.30pm, 11.30pm and 3.30am.

4. "It requires additional storage facilities, planning and ordering procedures, and complicates emergency preparedness (e.g. product expiration)"

From December 2000 to May 2001, I was working in one of Save the Children UK's TFCs in Wollo. We used both F-75 and F-100. There was no problem in storing both theraputic milks. There was no special recommendation to store F-75. For both products, the expiry duration was the same - May 2000 to November 2001.

MSF should consider the implications of their policies for other agencies. Their new recommendations are not consistent with WHO. Their protocols are widely adopted by other agencies - many with less experience than them as an agency. In an effort to promote best practice and support coordination and interagency consistency on standards, couldn't they reconsider their recommendations?

Kiross Tefera
Emergency Nutrition Programme (SCUK, Ethiopia)

 

Dear Kiross Terefa,

One of the biggest values MSF fosters is that the quality of care should be optimal as possible, taking into account the latest insights and best practices. However, in emergency situations one must often compromise between the best practices and feasible interventions.

One of the biggest dilemmas of the best practices is: do we wait with an intervention until all preconditions are available (F100, F75, sufficient expat and national staff available and trained, government agreement, cars arrived, structures in place, funding secured, etc.) or do we start an intervention with the means we have? For instance in Wau 1998 (Field Exchange 15, April 2002) we certainly considered using F75 in our intervention; F75 was ordered but the delivery in Wau took several months. The high mortality in this particular intervention in Wau (South Sudan) was mentioned by Schofield et al. (Field Exchange 14, November 2001) as evidence of the necessity of F75. However, we did not see any change when we finally used it, despite the fact that other operational aspects (access, staffing, logistics, etc.) had improved since the start of the intervention. Nevertheless MSF believes the F75 is a very appropriate food in the first phase and certainly MSF recommends the use of it, in order to optimise quality standards. However, we want to be flexible and adapt the therapeutic regimes according to emergency context and available resources, in order to intervene promptly, and to avoid inertia.

Saskia Van der Kam
(MDF Holland)

More like this

FEX: Adapted MSF nutrition guidelines on F75

Prompted by recent operational findings, MSF has decided to modify its Nutrition Guidelines to promote the use of F75 in Phase I treatment of severe malnutrition. Although...

FEX: A pragmatic approach to treating severe malnutrition in emergencies: is F75 always beneficial?

By Saskia van der Kam Saskia is the headquarters nutritionist in MSF Holland. This article describes MSF's experience of implementing a therapeutic feeding programme for...

FEX: Letter on MSF guidelines on using F75, Saskia van der Kam, Aranka Anema, Sophie Baquet and Marc Gastellu

Dear Editor, MSF would like to thank Schofield et al for their constructive criticism in the letter section of the previous edition of Field Exchange. We believe that...

FEX: Revised MSF nutrition guidelines III

By Saskia van der Kam and Sophie Baquet, MSF The summary below is based upon a near final draft of the new MSF guidelines.1 The guidelines may therefore undergo some revision...

FEX: Letter on revised MSF Nutrition Guidelines draft, by E.C. Schofield, Ann Ashworth, Mike Golden and Y. Grellety

Dear Field Exchange, Revised MSF nutrition guidelines We would like to comment on the draft of the newly revised MSF guidelines for the treatment of severe malnutrition...

FEX: Updated Nutriset ‘red scoop’ instructions for mixing F75 and F100

Nutriset's F-75 and F-100 therapeutic milks come in sachets of, respectively, 410 g and 456 g. For both products, the full content of one sachet must be mixed with 2 litres of...

FEX: Revised MSF Nutrition Guidelines II

By Saskia van der Kam, MSF Holland, Senior Nutritionist This is the second in a series of pieces published in Field Exchange* which summarises key sections of the newly...

FEX: Issue 15 Editorial

Two of the field articles in this issue of Field Exchange address to varying degrees the subject of advocacy. The dictionary definition of the word is 'recommendation' or...

FEX: New Measuring Scoops for F75 Therapeutic Milk

To respond to frequent requests for measuring scoops for the preparation of small quantities of F-75, Nutriset with the approval of UNICEF, are including measuring scoops in...

FEX: MSF experiences from Afghanistan: Maslakh camp

by Saskia van der Kam Saskia van der Kam is the headquarters nutritionist in MSF Holland. This article draws on her field trips to Afghanistan and a number of other MSF Field...

FEX: MSF Holland

Name MSF Holland Year formed Staff (2003) 1984 Address Plantage Middenlaan 14 PO Box 10014 1001 EA Amsterdam The Netherlands Overseas 795 Telephone 00 31 20 520...

en-net: Use of half strength infant formula instead of F75 Formula

Hi All I am currently working as a Dietitian Advisor to the Samoan NHS. A current practice in the Paediatric ward for infants ranging from about 6 months to 2 years,...

FEX: Inter-Agency Workshop on Food Security Assessments in Emergencies: Amsterdam, 2-3 December 1997

On the 2nd and 3rd of December 1997 MSF Holland organised a workshop on food security assessments in emergencies. The purpose of the workshop was to share and discuss...

FEX: Factors associated with defaulting in MSF ambulatory programme

Summary of meeting abstract1 Children participate in the obligatory 'appetite' taste for RUTF Since Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) changed its treatment approach from...

FEX: Mental health needed for caring capacity

By Saskia van der Kam Kaz de Jong and Maureen Mulhern also contributed to this article. Saskia van der Kam is the headquarters nutritionist in MSF Holland. Kaz de Jong, is a...

en-net: Converting F100 to F75 or making F75 from commercial milk powder

We have a problem of access to one area in Darfur and are asking for feedback on how to either convert F100 to be equivalent to F75 OR how to prepare F75 from locally available...

FEX: Revised MSF Nutrition Guidelines

by Saskia van der Kam, MSF Holland, Senior Nutritionist The MSF nutrition guidelines for use in emergencies have recently been revised. The new guideline will be available in...

FEX: NutritionNET: independent nutrition information exchange

By Saskia van der Kam, chairperson of NutritionNet, and headquarters nutritionist in MSF Holland. Evaluations of emergency nutrition programs have repeatedly illuminated the...

FEX: Selective Feeding Programme Evaluation in Nyapara, Bangladesh.

Summary of Internal MSF Holland Evaluation. Nyapara refugee camp in Bangladesh houses Rohinga refugees from Myanmar who arrived in 1992. The refugees have a male-dominated...

FEX: Supplementation Programmes for Pregnant and Lactating Women.

In emergencies, a marginal or deficient diet for a pregnant or lactating woman has repercussions not only for her own health, but also for the health of the unborn, and the...

Close

Reference this page

Kiross Tefera; Saskia Van der Kam (2002). Letter on standards for severe malnutrition mangement, by Kiross Tefera, with response by Saskia van der Kam. Field Exchange 16, August 2002. p19. www.ennonline.net/fex/16/kiross