Quality in crisis: a systematic review of the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing concern that the quality of health systems in humanitarian crises and the care they provide has received little attention. To help better understand current practice and research on health system quality, this paper aimed to examine the evidence on the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings. METHODS: This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The context of interest was populations affected by humanitarian crisis in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We included studies where the intervention of interest, health services for populations affected by crisis, was provided by the formal health system. Our outcome of interest was the quality of the health system. We included primary research studies, from a combination of information sources, published in English between January 2000 and January 2019 using quantitative and qualitative methods. We used the High Quality Health Systems Framework to analyze the included studies by quality domain and sub-domain. RESULTS: We identified 2285 articles through our search, of which 163 were eligible for full-text review, and 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Poor diagnosis, inadequate patient referrals, and inappropriate treatment of illness were commonly cited barriers to quality care. There was a strong focus placed on the foundations of a health system with emphasis on the workforce and tools, but a limited focus on the health impacts of health systems. The review also suggests some barriers to high quality health systems that are specific to humanitarian settings such as language barriers for refugees in their host country, discontinued care for migrant populations with chronic conditions, and fears around provider safety. CONCLUSION: The review highlights a large gap in the measurement of quality both at the point of care and at the health system level. There is a need for further work particularly on health system measurement strategies, accountability mechanisms, and patient-centered approaches in humanitarian settings.

Quality of perinatal depression care in primary care setting in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Even though integrating mental health into maternal and child health (MCH) is widely accepted as a means of closing the treatment gap for maternal mental health conditions in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), there are not many studies on the quality of the currently available mental health care for mothers in these countries. This study assessed the existing organization of service for maternal mental health, the actual care delivered for perinatal depression, as well as the quality of the care received by affected women presenting to primary care clinics in Ibadan, Nigeria. METHODS: The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) tool was administered to the staff in 23 primary maternal care clinics and key informant interviews were conducted with 20 facility managers to explore organizational and administrative features relevant to the delivery of maternal mental health care in the facilities. Detection rate of perinatal depression by maternal care providers was assessed by determining the proportion of depressed antenatal women identified by the providers. The women were then followed up from the antenatal period up until 6 months after childbirth to track their experience with care received. RESULTS: All the facilities had ACIC domain scores indicating poor capacity to offer quality chronic care. Emerging themes from the interviews included severe manpower shortage and absence of administrative and clinical support for manpower training and care provision. Only 31 of the 218 depressed women had been identified by the maternal care providers as having a psychological problem throughout the follow-up period. In spite of the objective evidence of inadequate care, most of the perinatal women rated the service provided in the facilities as being of good quality (96%) and reported being satisfied with the care received (98%). CONCLUSION: There are major inadequacies in the organisational and administrative profile of these primary maternal care facilities that militate against the provision of quality chronic care. These inadequacies translate to a large treatment gap for women with perinatal depression. Lack of awareness by service users of what constitutes good quality care, indicative of low service expectation, may hamper user-driven demand for quality improvement.

Equity in antenatal care quality: an analysis of 91 national household surveys.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data show that many low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) health systems struggle to consistently provide good-quality care. Although monitoring of inequalities in access to health services has been the focus of major international efforts, inequalities in health-care quality have not been systematically examined. METHODS: Using the most recent (2007-16) Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 91 LMICs, we described antenatal care quality based on receipt of three essential services (blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing) among women who had at least one visit with a skilled antenatal-care provider. We compared quality across country income groups and quantified within-country wealth-related inequalities using the slope and relative indices of inequality. We summarised inequalities using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the extent to which other geographical and sociodemographic factors could explain these inequalities. FINDINGS: Globally, 72·9% (95% CI 69·1-76·8) of women who used antenatal care reported blood pressure monitoring and urine and blood testing; this number ranged from 6·3% in Burundi to 100·0% in Belarus. Antenatal care quality lagged behind antenatal care coverage the most in low-income countries, where 86·6% (83·4-89·7) of women accessed care but only 53·8% (44·3-63·3) reported receiving the three services. Receipt of the three services was correlated with gross domestic product per capita and was 40 percentage points higher in upper-middle-income countries compared with low-income countries. Within countries, the wealthiest women were on average four times more likely to report good quality care than the poorest (relative index of inequality 4·01, 95% CI 3·90-4·13). Substantial inequality remained after adjustment for subnational region, urban residence, maternal age, education, and number of antenatal care visits (3·20, 3·11-3·30). INTERPRETATION: Many LMICs that have reached high levels of antenatal care coverage had much lower and inequitable levels of quality. Achieving ambitious maternal, newborn, and child health goals will require greater focus on the quality of health services and their equitable distribution. Equity in effective coverage should be used as the new metric to monitor progress towards universal health coverage. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Barriers and Facilitators to Scaling Up the Non-Pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment for Treating Obstetric Hemorrhage: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Obstetric hemorrhage (OH), which includes hemorrhage from multiple etiologies during pregnancy, childbirth, or postpartum, is the leading cause of maternal mortality and accounts for one-quarter of global maternal deaths. The Non-pneumatic Anti-Shock Garment (NASG) is a first-aid device for obstetric hemorrhage that can be applied for post-partum/post miscarriage and for ectopic pregnancies to buy time for a woman to reach a health care facility for definitive treatment. Despite successful field trials, and endorsement by safe motherhood organizations and the World Health Organization (WHO), scale-up has been slow in some countries. This qualitative study explores contextual factors affecting uptake. METHODS: From March 2013 to April 2013, we conducted 13 key informant interviews across four countries with a large burden of maternal mortality that had achieved varying success in scaling up the NASG: Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. These key informants were health providers or program specialists working with the NASG. We applied a health policy analysis framework to organize the results. The framework has five domains: attributes of the intervention, attributes of the implementers, delivery strategy, attributes of the adopting community, the socio-political context, and the research context. RESULTS: The interviews from our study found that relevant facilitators for scale-up are the simplicity of the device, local and international champions, well-developed training sessions, recommendations by WHO and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and dissemination of NASG clinical trial results. Barriers to scaling up the NASG included limited health infrastructure, relatively high upfront cost of the NASG, initial resistance by providers and policy makers, lack of in-country champions or policy makers advocating for NASG implementation, inadequate return and exchange programs, and lack of political will. CONCLUSIONS: There was a continuum of uptake ranging in both speed and scale. Ethiopia while not the first country to use the NASG has the most rapid scale-up, followed by Nigeria, then India, and finally Zimbabwe. Increasing the coverage of the NASG will require collaboration with local NASG champions, greater NASG awareness among clinicians and policymakers, as well as stronger political will and advocacy.