Third delay in care of critically ill patients: a qualitative investigation of public hospitals in Kenya.

OBJECTIVES: Third delay refers to delays in delivering requisite care to patients after they arrive at a health facility. In low-resource care settings, effective triage and flow of care are difficult to guarantee. In this study, we aimed to identify delays in the delivery of care to critically ill patients and possible ways to address these delays. DESIGN: This was an exploratory qualitative study using in-depth interviews and patient journeys. The qualitative data were transcribed and aggregated into themes in NVivo V.12 Plus using inductive and deductive approaches. SETTING: This study was conducted in four secondary-level public Kenyan hospitals across four counties between March and December 2021. The selected hospitals were part of the Clinical Information Network. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling method was used to identify administrative and front-line healthcare providers and patients. We conducted 12 in-depth interviews with 11 healthcare workers and patient journeys of 7 patients. Informed consent was sought from the participants and maintained throughout the study. RESULTS: We identified a cycle of suboptimal systems for care with adaptive mechanisms that prevent quality care to critically ill patients. We identified suboptimal systems for identification of critical illness, inadequate resources for continuity care and disruption of the flow of care, as the major causes of delays in identification and the initiation of essential care to critically ill patients. Our study also illuminated the contribution of inflexible bureaucratic non-clinical business-related organisational processes to third delay. CONCLUSION: Eliminating or reducing delays after patients arrive at the hospital is a time-sensitive measure that could improve the care outcomes of critically ill patients. This is achievable through an essential emergency and critical care package within the hospitals. Our findings can help emphasise the need for standardised effective and reliable care priorities to maintain of care of critically ill patients.

Characterising support and care assistants in formal hospital settings: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A 15 million health workforce shortage is still experienced globally leading to a sub-optimal healthcare worker-to-population ratio in most countries. The use of low-skilled care assistants has been suggested as a cost-saving human resource for health strategy that can significantly reduce the risks of rationed, delayed, or missed care. However, the characterisation, role assignment, regulation, and clinical governance mechanisms for unlicensed assistive workforce remain unclear or inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to map and collate evidence of how care assistants are labelled, utilised, regulated, and managed in formal hospital settings as well as their impact on patient care. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of literature from PUBMED, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Searches and eligibility screening were conducted using the Participants-Context-Concepts framework. Thematic content analysis guided the synthesis of the findings. RESULTS: 73 records from a total of 15 countries were included in the final full-text review and synthesis. A majority (78%) of these sources were from high-income countries. Many titles are used to describe care assistants, and these vary within and across countries. On ascribed roles, care assistants perform direct patient care, housekeeping, clerical and documentation, portering, patient flow management, ordering of laboratory tests, emergency response and first aid duties. Additional extended roles that require higher competency levels exist in the United States, Australia, and Canada. There is a mixture of both positive and negative sentiments on their impact on patient care or nurses' perception and experiences. Clinical and organisational governance mechanisms vary substantially across the 15 countries. Licensure, regulatory mechanisms, and task-shifting policies are largely absent or not reported in these countries. CONCLUSIONS: The nomenclature used to describe care assistants and the tasks they perform vary substantially within countries and across healthcare systems. There is, therefore, a need to review and update the international and national classification of occupations for clarity and more meaningful nomenclature for care assistants. In addition, the association between care assistants and care outcomes or nurses' experience remains unclear. Furthermore, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on this topic from low- and middle-income countries.