Bypassing sources of care by level and coverage: Access to essential services in Peru and Uruguay in the post-pandemic era.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Healthcare provision to distinct social groups in Latin America contributes to inequities. Individuals make active choices by bypassing their coverage and intended healthcare source. After the pandemic, we sought to characterize bypassing behaviors and quantify their effects on access to essential services. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a population-based telephone survey in Peru and Uruguay were analyzed. Participants were selected by random digit dialing. Outcomes were defined as access to preventive screenings and satisfaction of emerging health needs. Bypassing by level was defined as when participants went around primary care for the usual source of care or last preventive visit; bypassing by coverage when care was sought outside of public coverage or social security. Sociodemographic characteristics were included, and the adjusted average treatment effect was calculated. RESULTS: Data from 1,255 participants in Peru and 1,237 participants in Uruguay were analyzed. Bypassing behaviors by level (32% Peru; 60% Uruguay) and coverage (29% Peru; 21% Uruguay) were more prevalent in more privileged groups, especially in Peru. System competence was low overall and varied by bypassing mode, especially in Peru. In the adjusted analysis, statistically significant differences were found in bypassing by coverage in Peru (-8% difference in unmet health needs) and by level in Uruguay (5% more unmet needs). CONCLUSION: Provision of essential preventive services was insufficient in both countries. In Peru, bypassing could serve as a proxy measure of inequities. Reminders of preventive services could be offered to bypassers of primary care. Profound health system reforms are needed to ensure equitable access to essential services.

Improvement in antibacterial use in intensive care units from Argentina: A quality improvement collaborative process evaluation using Normalization Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections and antibiotic resistance worsen globally. Antibiotic stewardship programs (ASP) aim to optimise infection treatment and curb resistance, yet implementation hurdles persist. This study examined ASP challenges in ICUs. METHODS: This study employed a qualitative methodological design to evaluate the implementation process of an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) in eight intensive care units (ICUs) across Argentina. Thirty-four semi-structured interviews with healthcare workers (HCWs) were conducted. Interviews were analysed guided by Normalisation Process Theory, examining coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring constructs. RESULTS: Key challenges included insufficient human resources, lack of institutional support, and resistance to change, particularly among staff not initially involved in the study. Despite these challenges, the program saw partial success in improving ICU practices, particularly in antibiotic use and communication across departments. The main strategy implemented in this quality improvement collaborative was the use of improvement cycles, which served as the central component for driving change. However, participation in improvement cycles was inconsistent, and sustainability post-intervention remains uncertain due to workload pressures and the need for continuous education. Concerns about workload and communication barriers persisted. Many participants did not perceive training as a separate component, which led to low engagement. Resistance to change became evident during modifications to clinical guidelines. The intervention had a positive impact on various processes, including communication and record keeping. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the persistent challenges in implementing ASPs in healthcare, emphasising the need for enhanced collaboration, workforce capacity building, and evidence-based practices to overcome barriers and optimize antimicrobial use to improve patient outcomes.

Optimising antibacterial utilisation in Argentine intensive care units: a quality improvement collaborative.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence from antimicrobial stewardship programmes in less-resourced settings. This study aimed to improve the quality of antibacterial prescriptions by mitigating overuse and promoting the use of narrow-spectrum agents in intensive care units (ICUs) in a middle-income country. METHODS: We established a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) model involving nine Argentine ICUs over 11 months with a 16-week baseline period (BP) and a 32-week implementation period (IP). Our intervention package included audits and feedback on antibacterial use, facility-specific treatment guidelines, antibacterial timeouts, pharmacy-based interventions and education. The intervention was delivered in two learning sessions with three action periods along with coaching support and basic quality improvement training. RESULTS: We included 912 patients, 357 in BP and 555 in IP. The latter had higher APACHE II (17 (95% CI: 12 to 21) vs 15 (95% CI: 11 to 20), p=0.036), SOFA scores (6 (95% CI: 4 to 9) vs 5 (95% CI: 3 to 8), p=0.006), renal failure (41.6% vs 33.1%, p=0.009), sepsis (36.1% vs 31.6%, p<0.001) and septic shock (40.0% vs 33.8%, p<0.001). The days of antibacterial therapy (DOT) were similar between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 28.1 (95% CI: -17.4 to 73.5), p=0.2405). There were no differences in the antibacterial defined daily dose (DDD) between the groups (change in the slope from BP to IP 43.9, (95% CI: -12.3 to 100.0), p=0.1413).The rate of antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture was higher during the IP (62.0% vs 45.3%, p<0.001).The infection prevention control (IPC) assessment framework was increased in eight ICUs. CONCLUSION: Implementing an antimicrobial stewardship program in ICUs in a middle-income country via a QIC demonstrated success in improving antibacterial de-escalation based on microbiological culture results, but not on DOT or DDD. In addition, eight out of nine ICUs improved their IPC Assessment Framework Score.

Quality improvement collaborative for improving patient care delivery in Argentine public health sector intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: The demand for healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic was excessive for less-resourced settings, with intensive care units (ICUs) taking the heaviest toll. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to achieve adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) use in 90% of patient encounters, to reach 90% compliance with objectives of patient flow (OPF) and to provide emotional support tools to 90% of healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a quasi-experimental study with an interrupted time-series design in 14 ICUs in Argentina. We randomly selected adult critically ill patients admitted from July 2020 to July 2021 and active HCWs in the same period. We implemented a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) with a baseline phase (BP) and an intervention phase (IP). The QIC included learning sessions, periods of action and improvement cycles (plan-do-study-act) virtually coached by experts via platform web-based activities. The main study outcomes encompassed the following elements: proper utilisation of PPE, compliance with nine specific OPF using daily goal sheets through direct observations and utilisation of a web-based tool for tracking emotional well-being among HCWs. RESULTS: We collected 7341 observations of PPE use (977 in BP and 6364 in IP) with an improvement in adequate use from 58.4% to 71.9% (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.29, p<0.001). We observed 7428 patient encounters to evaluate compliance with 9 OPF (879 in BP and 6549 in IP) with an improvement in compliance from 53.9% to 67% (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32, p<0.001). The results showed that HCWs did not use the support tool for self-mental health evaluation as much as expected. CONCLUSION: A QIC was effective in improving healthcare processes and adequate PPE use, even in the context of a pandemic, indicating the possibility of expanding QIC networks nationwide to improve overall healthcare delivery. The limited reception of emotional support tools requires further analyses.

Population assessment of health system performance in 16 countries.

Objective: To demonstrate how the new internationally comparable instrument, the People's Voice Survey, can be used to contribute the perspective of the population in assessing health system performance in countries of all levels of income. Methods: We surveyed representative samples of populations in 16 low-, middle- and high-income countries on health-care utilization, experience and confidence during 2022-2023. We summarized and visualized data corresponding to the key domains of the World Health Organization universal health coverage framework for health system performance assessment. We examined correlation with per capita health spending by calculating Pearson coefficients, and within-country income-based inequities using the slope index of inequality. Findings: In the domain of care effectiveness, we found major gaps in health screenings and endorsement of public primary care. Only one in three respondents reported very good user experience during health visits, with lower proportions in low-income countries. Access to health care was rated highest of all domains; however, only half of the populations felt secure that they could access and afford high-quality care if they became ill. Populations rated the quality of private health systems higher than that of public health systems in most countries. Only half of respondents felt involved in decision-making (less in high-income countries). Within countries, we found statistically significant pro-rich inequalities across many indicators. Conclusion: Populations can provide vital information about the real-world function of health systems, complementing other system performance metrics. Population-wide surveys such as the People's Voice Survey should become part of regular health system performance assessments.

Population confidence in the health system in 15 countries: results from the first round of the People's Voice Survey.

Population confidence is essential to a well functioning health system. Using data from the People's Voice Survey-a novel population survey conducted in 15 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries-we report health system confidence among the general population and analyse its associated factors. Across the 15 countries, fewer than half of respondents were health secure and reported being somewhat or very confident that they could get and afford good-quality care if very sick. Only a quarter of respondents endorsed their current health system, deeming it to work well with no need for major reform. The lowest support was in Peru, the UK, and Greece-countries experiencing substantial health system challenges. Wealthy, more educated, young, and female respondents were less likely to endorse the health system in many countries, portending future challenges for maintaining social solidarity for publicly financed health systems. In pooled analyses, the perceived quality of the public health system and government responsiveness to public input were strongly associated with all confidence measures. These results provide a post-COVID-19 pandemic baseline of public confidence in the health system. The survey should be repeated regularly to inform policy and improve health system accountability.

Inequalities in health system coverage and quality: a cross-sectional survey of four Latin American countries.

The premise of health as a human right in Latin America has been challenged by health system fragmentation, quality gaps, a growing burden of chronic disease, sociopolitical upheaval, and the COVID-19 pandemic. We characterised inequities in health system quality in Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay. We did a cross-sectional telephone survey with up to 1250 adults in each country. We created binary outcomes in coverage, user experience, system competence, and confidence in the system and calculated the slope index of inequality by income and education. Although access to care was high, only a third of respondents reported having a high-quality source of care and 25% of those with mental health needs had those needs met. Two-thirds of adults were able to access relevant preventive care and 42% of older adults were screened for cardiovascular disease. Telehealth access, communication and autonomy in most recent visit, reasonable waiting times, and receiving preventive health checks showed inequalities favouring people with a high income. In Uruguay, inequality between government and social security services explained a substantial proportion of disparities in preventive health access. In other study countries, inequalities were also substantial within government and social security subsectors. Essential health system functions are unequal in these four Latin American countries.

Health system quality and COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional analysis in 14 countries.

The social and behavioural determinants of COVID-19 vaccination have been described previously. However, little is known about how vaccinated people use and rate their health system. We used surveys conducted in 14 countries to study the health system correlates of COVID-19 vaccination. Country-specific logistic regression models were adjusted for respondent age, education, income, chronic illness, history of COVID-19, urban residence, and minority ethnic, racial, or linguistic group. Estimates were summarised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. Vaccination coverage with at least two or three doses ranged from 29% in India to 85% in Peru. Greater health-care use, having a regular and high-quality provider, and receiving other preventive health services were positively associated with vaccination. Confidence in the health system and government also increased the odds of vaccination. By contrast, having unmet health-care needs or experiencing discrimination or a medical mistake decreased the odds of vaccination. Associations between health system predictors and vaccination tended to be stronger in high-income countries and in countries with the most COVID-19-related deaths. Access to quality health systems might affect vaccine decisions. Building strong primary care systems and ensuring a baseline level of quality that is affordable for all should be central to pandemic preparedness strategies.

Primary health care in practice: usual source of care and health system performance across 14 countries.

Primary health care (PHC) is central to attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals, yet comparable cross-country data on key aspects of primary care have not been widely available. This study analysed data from the People's Voice Survey, which was conducted in 2022 and 2023 in 14 countries. We documented usual source of care across countries and examined associations of usual source of care with core PHC services, quality ratings, and health system confidence. We found that 75% of respondents had a usual source of care, and that 40% of respondents accessed usual care in the public sector at primary level. 44% rated their usual source of care as very good or excellent. Access to PHC-linked screenings and treatments varied widely within and across countries. Having any usual source of care was associated with higher take-up of preventive services, greater access to treatment including mental health services, and greater health system endorsement. Strengthening links between health system users and primary care providers could improve take-up of preventive care and increase user satisfaction with health system performance.

Measuring people's views on health system performance: Design and development of the People's Voice Survey.

Todd Lewis and co-authors discuss development and use of the People's Voice Survey for health system assessment.

A systematic review of population and patient perspectives and experiences as measured in Latin American and Caribbean surveys.

High-quality health systems must provide accessible, people-centred care to both improve health and maintain population trust in health services. Furthermore, accurate measurement of population perspectives is vital to hold health systems accountable and to inform improvement efforts. To describe the current state of such measures in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), we conducted a systematic review of facility and population-based assessments that included patient-reported experience and satisfaction measures. Five databases were searched for publications on quantitative surveys assessing healthcare quality in Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking LAC countries, focusing on the domains of processes of care and quality impacts. We included articles published since 2011 with a national sampling frame or inclusion of multiple subnational regions. We tabulated and described these articles, identifying, classifying and summarizing the items used to assess healthcare quality into the domains mentioned earlier. Of the 5584 publications reviewed, 58 articles met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional (95%), assessed all levels of healthcare (57%) and were secondary analyses of existing surveys (86%). The articles yielded 33 unique surveys spanning 12 LAC countries; only eight of them are regularly administered surveys. The most common quality domains assessed were satisfaction (in 33 out of 58 articles, 57%), evidence-based/effective care (34%), waiting times (33%), clear communication (33%) and ease of use (31%). Items and reported ratings varied widely among instruments used, time points and geographical settings. Assessment of patient-reported quality measures through population- and facility-based surveys is present but heterogeneous in LAC countries. Satisfaction was measured frequently, although its use in accountability or informing quality improvement is limited. Measurement of healthcare quality in LAC needs to be more systematic, regular, comprehensive and to be led collaboratively by researchers, governments and policymakers to enable comparison of results across countries and to effectively inform policy implementation.

Quality improvement collaborative to optimize heart failure care in patients from a network of clinics in Argentina during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Heart failure (HF) is a major clinical and public health problem associated with significant mortality, morbidity, and health-care costs. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the optimal treatment of HF, the quality of care remains suboptimal. Our aim was to increase the use a care bundle in 50% of enrolled subjects during their hospitalization and discharge and to reduce their readmission for HF causes by 10%. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study in eight hospitals in Argentina to evaluate the effect of a quality improvement intervention on the use of an HF care bundle in patients with HF New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III. The HF bundle of care included medication, continuum of care, lifestyle habits, and predischarge examinations. Training and follow-up of multidisciplinary teams in each center were performed through learning sessions and plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Data collectors reviewed bundle compliance in the health records of recruited patients after their hospital discharge and verified readmissions through phone calls to patients within 30-40 days after discharge. We recruited 200 patients (83 before and 127 during the intervention phase), and bundle compliance increased from 9.6% to 28.3% [odds ratio 3.71, 95% confidence interval (8.46; 1.63); P = .002]. Despite a slow improvement during the first months, bundle compliance gained momentum near the end of the intervention surpassing 80%. We observed a non-significant decreased readmission rate within 30 days of discharge due to HF in the postintervention period [8.4% vs. 5.5%, odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI (1.88; 0.21); P = .410]. Qualitative analysis showed that members of the intervention teams acknowledged the improvement of work organization and standardization of care, teamwork, shared mental model, and health record completeness as well as the utility of training fellows. Despite the challenges related to the pandemic, better care of patients with HF NYHA Class II-III was possible through simple interventions and collaborative work. Graphical abstract.

Clinical leadership and coping strategies in times of COVID-19: observational study with health managers in Mendoza.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic required an immediate response to the healthcare challenges it posed. This study was conducted to identify actions that helped healthcare professionals to overcome the initial impact in Mendoza (Argentina). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a non-random sample of managers and staff of the public health system of Mendoza (Argentina) (n = 134). An ad-hoc and voluntary survey was carried out with 5 multi-response questions that combined questions referring to the management of the pandemic at the organizational level with others referring to coping at the individual level. The survey questions were formulated based on the results of six focus groups that were conducted previously. Descriptive frequency analysis was performed. RESULTS: 60 people agreed to participate and 45 answered the full questionnaire. At both the organizational and individual level, there was consensus with at least 50% of votes. The most outstanding at the organizational level was "Prioritize the need according to risk" and at the individual level it was "Support from family or friends", being also the most voted option in the whole questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The responses that emerged for coping with COVID-19 must be seen as an opportunity to identify strategies that could be effective in addressing future crisis situations that jeopardize the system's response capacity. Moreover, it is essential to retain both changes at the organizational level (e.g., new protocols, multidisciplinary work, shift restructuring, etc.) and coping strategies at the individual level (e.g., social support, leisure activities, etc.) that have proven positive outcomes.

Quality improvement intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening at the primary care setting: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 81% of deaths in Argentina are from chronic non-communicable diseases and 21% caused by cancer. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most frequent cancer in Argentina. Even though CRC screening has been recommended for adults from 50 to 75 years old by using a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) annually, screening rates remain below 20% in the country. METHODS: We conducted an 18-month, two-arm, pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial evaluating the effect of a quality improvement intervention, based on the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, considering barriers and catalysts to articulate theory and practice, to increase CRC screening rates using FITs at primary care level. The study involved ten public primary health centres in Mendoza province, Argentina. The primary outcome measure was the rate of effective CRC screening. Secondary outcomes were the rate of participants with a positive FIT, tests with invalid results and the rate of participants referred for colonoscopy. RESULTS: Screening was effective in 75% of the participants in the intervention arm vs 54.2% in the control arm, OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.4, p=0.001). These results remained unchanged after adjusting for individual demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Regarding secondary outcomes, the overall prevalence of positive tests was 17.7% (21.1% in the control arm and 14.7% in the intervention arm, p=0.3648). The overall proportion of participants with inadequate test results was 5.2% (4.9% in the control arm vs 5.5% in the intervention arm, p=0.8516). All the participants with positive tests were referred for colonoscopy in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention based on quality improvement strategies proved to be highly successful in increasing effective CRC screening in Argentina's primary care setting within the public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04293315.