Quality of care for children with acute respiratory infections in health facilities: a comparative analysis of assessment tools.

Background: Severe childhood pneumonia requires treatment in hospital by trained health care workers. It is therefore important to determine if health facilities provide quality health services for children with acute respiratory infections (ARI), including pneumonia. Using established indicators from WHO to measure quality of care (QoC) as a reference standard, this review aims to evaluate how well existing tools assess QoC for children presenting to health facilities with ARI. Methods: Existing assessment tools identified from a published systematic literature review that evaluated QoC assessment tools for children (<15 years) in health facilities for all health conditions were included in this ARI-specific review. 27 ARI-specific indicators or "quality measures" from the WHO "Standards for improving quality of care for children and young adolescents in health facilities" were selected for use as a reference standard to assess QoC for children presenting to health facilities with ARI symptoms. Each included assessment tool was evaluated independently by two paediatricians to determine how many of the WHO ARI quality measures were assessable by the tool. The assessment tools were then ranked in order of percentage of ARI quality measures assessable. Results: Nine assessment tools that assessed QoC for children attending health facilities were included. Two hospital care tools developed by WHO had the most consistency with ARI-specific indicators, assessing 22/27 (81.5%) and 20/27 (74.1%) of the quality measures. The remaining tools were less consistent with the ARI-specific indicators, including between zero to 16 of the 27 quality measures. The most common indicators absent from the tools were assessment of appropriate use of pulse oximetry and administration of oxygen, how often oxygen supply was unavailable, and mortality rates. Conclusions: The existing WHO hospital-based QoC assessment tools are comprehensive but could be enhanced by improved data quality around oxygen availability and appropriate use of pulse oximetry and oxygen administration. Any tools, however, should be considered within broader assessments of QoC, rather than utilised in isolation. Further adaptation to local settings will improve feasibility and facilitate progress in the delivery of quality health care for children with ARI. Registration: The protocol of the original systematic review was registered in PROSPERO ID: CRD42020175652.

Assessing the quality of care for children attending health facilities: a systematic review of assessment tools.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing quality of healthcare is integral in determining progress towards equitable health outcomes worldwide. Using the WHO 'Standards for improving quality of care for children and young adolescents in health facilities' as a reference standard, we aimed to evaluate existing tools that assess quality of care for children. METHODS: We undertook a systematic literature review of publications/reports between 2008 and 2020 that reported use of quality of care assessment tools for children (<15 years) in health facilities. Identified tools were reviewed against the 40 quality statements and 510 quality measures from the WHO Standards to determine the extent each tool was consistent with the WHO Standards. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO ID: CRD42020175652. RESULTS: Nine assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Two hospital care tools developed by WHO-Europe and WHO-South-East Asia Offices had the most consistency with the WHO Standards, assessing 291 (57·1%) and 208 (40·8%) of the 510 quality measures, respectively. Remaining tools included between 33 (6·5%) and 206 (40·4%) of the 510 quality measures. The WHO-Europe tool was the only tool to assess all 40 quality statements. The most common quality measures absent were related to experience of care, particularly provision of educational, emotional and psychosocial support to children and families, and fulfilment of children's rights during care. CONCLUSION: Quality of care assessment tools for children in health facilities are missing some key elements highlighted by the WHO Standards. The WHO Standards are, however, extensive and applying all the quality measures in every setting may not be feasible. A consensus of key indicators to monitor the WHO Standards is required. Existing tools could be modified to include priority indicators to strengthen progress reporting towards delivering quality health services for children. In doing so, a balance between comprehensiveness and practical utility is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020175652.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination After COVID-19.

The current global novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic threatens to derail the uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries with major disruptions to routine immunization and the introduction of new vaccines delayed. This has a major impact on the World Health Organization cervical cancer elimination strategy, where it is dependent on HPV vaccination as well as cervical cancer screening and treatment. We discuss current opportunities and barriers to achieve high uptake of HPV vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries as well as the impact of COVID-19. Implementation of 4 key recommendations for HPV vaccination in low- and lower-middle income countries is needed: increased global financial investment; improved vaccine supply and accelerated use of a single-dose schedule; education and social marketing; and adoption of universal school-based delivery. With the commitment of the global health community, the adoption of these strategies would underpin the effective elimination of cervical cancer.

Reduced dose human papillomavirus vaccination: an update of the current state-of-the-art.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is the primary cause of genital warts, some oropharyngeal cancers and anogenital cancers, including cervical, vagina, vulvar, anal and penile cancers. Primary prevention of cervical cancer requires the prevention of high-risk HPV infections, particularly HPV genotypes 16 and 18. Both Gardasil® and Cervarix® vaccines when administered by a three-dose schedule have been demonstrated to be effective against cervical, vulva, and vaginal cancer precursors from vaccine genotypes in phase III clinical trials, and post-marketing studies; Gardasil® vaccine also offers additional protection against anal cancer precursors. However, high costs of HPV vaccines and the logistics of delivering a three-dose schedule over 6 months are challenging in countries with limited resources. Several studies have demonstrated non-inferiority in antibody response between adolescents (9-15 years old) who received two doses (6 months apart) and women (>15 years old) who received the standard three-dose schedule. These studies provided evidence for the World Health Organization and European Medical Association to revise its recommendation to give two instead of three doses of HPV vaccine to adolescents below 15 years of age, provided the 2nd dose is given 6 months apart. Although reduced dose schedules can alleviate costs and logistics associated with HPV vaccination, especially in resource-poor countries, there are still gaps in this area of research, particularly regarding long-term protection. This review discusses the findings on antibody response and clinical outcomes in studies evaluating reduced dose HPV schedules, and highlights the important considerations of its implementation. In addition, other important immunological biomarkers that may be associated with long-term protection are highlighted and discussed.

Evidence on the use of paracetamol in febrile children.

Antipyretics, including acetaminophen (paracetamol), are prescribed commonly in children with pyrexia, despite minimal evidence of a clinical benefit. A literature review was performed by searching Medline and the Cochrane databases for research papers on the efficacy of paracetamol in febrile illnesses in children and adverse outcomes related to the use of paracetamol. No studies showed any clear benefit for the use of paracetamol in therapeutic doses in febrile children with viral or bacterial infections or with malaria. Some studies suggested that fever may have a beneficial role in infection, although no definitive prospective studies in children have been done to prove this. The use of paracetamol in therapeutic doses generally is safe, although hepatotoxicity has occurred with recommended dosages in children. In developing countries where malnutrition is common, data on the safety of paracetamol are lacking. The cost of paracetamol for poor families is substantial. No evidence shows that it is beneficial to treat febrile children with paracetamol. Treatment should be given only to children who are in obvious discomfort and those with conditions known to be painful. The role of paracetamol in children with severe malaria or sepsis and in malnourished, febrile children needs to be clarified.