How to Achieve Universal Health Coverage: A Case Study of Uganda Using the Political Process Model Comment on "Health Coverage and Financial Protection in Uganda: A Political Economy Perspective".

How can resource-deprived countries accelerate progress towards universal health coverage (UHC)? Here we extend the analysis of Nanini and colleagues to investigate a case-study of Uganda, where despite high-level commitments, health system priority and funding has shrunk over the past two decades. We draw on the Stuckler-McKee adapted Political Process model to evaluate three forces for effecting change: reframing the debate; acting on political windows of opportunity; and mobilising resources. Our analysis proposes a series of pragmatic steps from academics, non-governmental organisations, and government officials that can help neutralise the forces that oppose UHC and overcome fragmentation of the pro-UHC movement.

Clinician Perceptions of the Impact of a Shock Team Approach in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Designated cross-specialty shock teams have been proposed as a mechanism to manage the complexity of decision-making and facilitate collaborative, patient-centred care-planning in cardiogenic shock. Observational data support the notion that shock protocols and teams may improve survival, but there is an absence of data interrogating how clinicians engage with and value the shock team paradigm. This study sought to explore clinician perceptions of the value of the shock call system on decision making and the management of CGS. MATERIALS & METHODS: A descriptive qualitative approach was used. A focus group, semi-structured interview was conducted with twelve cross-specialty members of a shock team at a single tertiary cardiac centre in the UK. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed to capture and describe the clinicians' experience and perceptions of shock team discussions. RESULTS: Eight cardiac intensivists, two heart failure cardiologists, one cardiothoracic surgeon and one interventional cardiologist participated in the focus group. Four key themes were identified from the discussions: supportive decision making; team communication; governance and learning; and future directions. CONCLUSION: This study supports the notion that cross-specialty, real-time patient discussion may provide added value beyond protocolised decision making and account for the complexities of managing patients in a field where definitive, high-quality evidence to guide practice is currently limited.