Assessing healthcare quality using routine data: evaluating the performance of the national tuberculosis programme in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of healthcare facilities by means of indicators based on guidelines for clinical care of TB, which is likely a good measure of overall facility quality. METHODS: We assessed quality of care in all public health facilities in South Africa using graphical, correlation and locally weighted kernel regression analysis of routine TB test data. RESULTS: Facility performance falls short of national standards of care. Only 74% of patients with TB provided a second specimen for testing, 18% received follow-up testing and 14% received drug resistance testing. Only resistance testing rates improved over time, tripling between 2004 and 2011. National awareness campaigns and changes in clinical guidelines had only a transient impact on testing rates. The poorest performing facilities remained at the bottom of the rankings over the period of study. CONCLUSION: The optimal policy strategy requires both broad-based policies and targeted resources to poor performers. This approach to assessing facility quality of care can be adapted to other contexts and also provides a low-cost method for evaluating the effectiveness of proposed interventions. Devising targeted policies based on routine data is a cost-effective way to improve the quality of public health care provided.

Does directly observed therapy improve tuberculosis treatment? More evidence is needed to guide tuberculosis policy.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) now ranks alongside HIV as the leading infectious disease cause of death worldwide and incurs a global economic burden of over $12 billion annually. Directly observed therapy (DOT) recommends that TB patients complete the course of treatment under direct observation of a treatment supporter who is trained and overseen by health services to ensure that patients take their drugs as scheduled. Though the current WHO End TB Strategy does not mention DOT, only "supportive treatment supervision by treatment partners", many TB programs still use it despite the fact that the has not been demonstrated to be statistically significantly superior to self-administered treatment in ensuring treatment success or cure. DISCUSSION: DOT is designed to promote proper adherence to the full course of drug therapy in order to improve patient outcomes and prevent the development of drug resistance. Yet over 8 billion dollars is spent on TB treatment each year and thousands undergo DOT for all or part of their course of treatment, despite the absence of rigorous evidence supporting the superior effectiveness of DOT over self-administration for achieving drug susceptible TB (DS-TB) cure. Moreover, the DOT component burdens patients with financial and opportunity costs, and the potential for intensified stigma. To rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of DOT and identify the essential contributors to both successful treatment and minimized patient burden, we call for a pragmatic experimental trial conducted in real-world program settings, the gold standard for evidence-based health policy decisions. It is time to invest in the rigorous evaluation of DOT and reevaluate the DOT requirement for TB treatment worldwide. Rigorously evaluating the choice of treatment supporter, the frequency of health care worker contact and the development of new educational materials in a real-world setting would build the evidence base to inform the optimal design of TB treatment protocol. Implementing a more patient-centered approach may be a wise reallocation of resources to raise TB cure rates, prevent relapse, and minimize the emergence of drug resistance. Maintaining the status quo in the absence of rigorous supportive evidence may diminish the effectiveness of TB control policies in the long run.

Facilitators and barriers to community-led monitoring of health programs: Qualitative evidence from the global implementation landscape.

Achieving the global HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria targets will require innovative strategies to deliver high quality and person-centered health services. Community-led monitoring (CLM) is a rapidly proliferating health systems strengthening intervention for improving healthcare services and documenting human rights violations, through social empowerment and political accountability. Driven in part by increasing financial support from donors, a growing number of countries are implementing CLM programs. This study aimed to identify early challenges and lessons learned from CLM implementation, with the aim of informing and improving the implementation of CLM programs and ultimately achieving greater impact on the delivery of services. Twenty-five CLM implementors representing 21 countries participated in an interview. Early generation of buy-in from diverse stakeholders was noted as critical for CLM success. Leveraging existing networks of service users and community organizations to implement CLM also helped to maximize program reach and resources. Uncertainty around CLM's purpose and roles among CLM stakeholders resulted in challenges to community leadership and ownership of programs. Respondents also described challenges with underfunded programs, especially advocacy components, and inflexible donor funding mechanisms. Critical capacity gaps remain around advocacy and electronic data collection and use. With the rapid expansion of CLM, this study serves as an important first step in characterizing challenges and successes in the CLM landscape. Successful implementation of CLM requires prioritizing community ownership and leadership, donor commitment to sustainable and reliable funding, and strengthened support of programs across the data collection and advocacy lifecycle.