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.

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 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.

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.

Argentine consensus recommendations for lung cancer screening programmes: a RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer (LC) screening improves LC survival; the best screening method in terms of improving survival is low-dose CT (LDCT), outpacing chest X-ray and sputum cytology. METHODS: A consensus of experts in Argentina was carried out to review the literature and generate recommendations for LC screening programmes. A mixed-method study was used with three phases: (1) review of the literature; (2) modified Delphi consensus panel; and (3) development of the recommendations. The Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework was used to generate 13 evaluation criteria. Nineteen experts participated in four voting rounds. Consensus among participants was defined using the RAND/UCLA method. RESULTS: A total of 16 recommendations scored ≥7 points with no disagreement on any criteria. Screening for LC should be performed with LDCT annually in the population at high-risk, aged between 55 and 74 years, regardless of sex, without comorbidities with a risk of death higher than the risk of death from LC, smoking ≥30 pack-years or former smokers who quit smoking within 15 years. Screening will be considered positive when finding a solid nodule ≥6 mm in diameter (or ≥113 mm3) on baseline LDCT and 4 mm in diameter if a new nodule is identified on annual screening. A smoking cessation programme should be offered, and cardiovascular risk assessment should be performed. Institutions should have a multidisciplinary committee, have protocols for the management of symptomatic patients not included in the programme and distribute educational material. CONCLUSION: The recommendations provide a basis for minimum requirements from which local institutions can develop their own protocols adapted to their needs and resources.

Contributing factors for acute stress in healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador.

This study analyzed the frequency and intensity of acute stress among health professionals caring for COVID-19 patients in four Latin American Spanish-speaking countries during the outbreak. A cross-sectional study involved a non-probability sample of healthcare professionals in four Latin American countries. Participants from each country were invited using a platform and mobile application designed for this study. Hospital and primary care workers from different services caring for COVID-19 patients were included. The EASE Scale (SARS-CoV-2 Emotional Overload Scale, in Spanish named Escala Auto-aplicada de Sobrecarga Emocional) was a previously validated measure of acute stress. EASE scores were described overall by age, sex, work area, and experience of being ill with COVID-19. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, the EASE scores were compared according to the most critical moments of the pandemic. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate associations between these factors and the outcome 'acute stress'. Finally, the Kruskal-Wallis was used to compare EASE scores and the experience of being ill. A total of 1372 professionals responded to all the items in the EASE scale: 375 (27.3%) Argentines, 365 (26.6%) Colombians, 345 (25.1%) Chileans, 209 (15.2%) Ecuadorians, and 78 (5.7%) from other countries. 27% of providers suffered middle-higher acute stress due to the outbreak. Worse results were observed in moments of peak incidence of cases (14.3 ± 5.3 vs. 6.9 ± 1.7, p < 0.05). Higher scores were found in professionals in COVID-19 critical care (13 ± 1.2) than those in non-COVID-19 areas (10.7 ± 1.9) (p = 0.03). Distress was higher among professionals who were COVID-19 patients (11.7 ± 1) or had doubts about their potential infection (12 ± 1.2) compared to those not infected (9.5 ± 0.7) (p = 0.001). Around one-third of the professionals experienced acute stress, increasing in intensity as the incidence of COVID-19 increased and as they became infected or in doubt whether they were infected. EASE scale could be a valuable asset for monitoring acute stress levels among health professionals in Latin America.ClinicalTrials: NCT04486404.

Adaptation and implementation of the Batz guide for bedside advocacy in two hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The patients' guide by the Batz Patient Safety Foundation promotes patients' active participation in healthcare and a safe hospital experience. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to adapt the Spanish version of the guide to the local context and evaluate its acceptability from healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives in two hospitals in Buenos Aires, Argentina. METHODS: This implementation study had a formative research phase to adapt the guide with input from individual interviews and focus group discussions. The intervention comprised training sessions for professionals on patient-centered care and use of the guide, the appointment of coordinators, and distribution of the guide. The adapted guide (section During Admission) was distributed in two hospitals. Before and after intervention, we administered surveys to explore acceptability, utility, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Findings from formative research showed that the Batz guide needed to be shortened and adapted to the local healthcare context Although professionals had agreed on the importance of clinical guidelines; after using the Batz guide, they found it complex and difficult to implement. Patients' satisfaction with healthcare before and after implementing the guide did not differ significantly. Best scores were found in items related to availability of nurses, staff competence and staff kindness. A 78% of patients found the Batz guide useful. CONCLUSION: It is of critical importance to adapt the guide to the local culture, pilot it, and provide training to promote its implementation, improving acceptability and utility.