Use of a participatory quality assessment and improvement tool for maternal and neonatal hospital care. Part 2: Review of the results of quality cycles and of factors influencing change.

BACKGROUND: Information about the use of the findings of quality assessments in maternal and neonatal (MN) care is lacking and the development of tools capable to effectively address quality gaps is a key priority. Furthermore, little is known about factors that act as barriers or facilitators to change at facility level. Based on the extensive experience made with the WHO Quality Assessment and Improvement MN (QA/QI MN) tool, an overview is provided of the improvements in quality of care (QoC) which were obtained over time and of the factors influencing change. METHODS: All documented reports on the implementation of the WHO QA/QI MN tool were searched and screened for inclusion. Reports were considered if bringing evidence from both the baseline assessment and the reassessment. Changes were considered in four domains: maternal care, neonatal care, infrastructure and policies, with reference made to WHO maternal and neonatal care standards. The observed improvements were categorized according to intensity and extent across the sample of health facilities. Factors influencing change were categorized into internal and external and further classified as barriers or facilitators. RESULTS: Changes were documented after an average period of 1.2 years from first assessment in 27 facilities belonging to 9 different countries in Central and Eastern Europe (3), Central Asia (3), sub-Saharan Africa (2) and Latin America (1). Improvements were observed in all areas of care but were greater and more frequently observed in areas related to appropriate case management and respectful care for both mothers and newborns. Although widespread across most facilities and countries, the observed improvements were not covering all the quality gaps observed at the baseline assessment nor were always sufficient to achieve standard care. Factors facilitating change as well as barriers were mainly related to the capacity of the managers and head of units to involve and motivate their staff members. CONCLUSIONS: The use of WHO QA/QI MN tool proved effective in promoting significant changes in quality of care. The review of observed improvements and of factors influencing change at facility level shows that participatory assessment tools that promote a constructive dialogue with hospital managers and staff and support them in acquiring capacity in this role are crucial to implement effective quality cycles.

Use of a participatory quality assessment and improvement tool for maternal and neonatal hospital care. Part 1: Review of implementation features and observed quality gaps in 25 countries.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity is attributable to gaps in quality of care. A systematic, standard-based tool for quality assessment and improvement for maternal and neonatal hospital care (QA/QI MN tool) was developed in 2009 by the World Health Organization (WHO). The tool guides the assessment process along the whole continuum from admission to discharge, collects the views of the recipients of care and engages hospital mangers and staff in identifying gaps and drafting an action plan. METHODS: Publications describing use of the WHO QA/QI MN tool from 2009 to 2017 and reports retrievable from WHO or other development partners' websites were searched and considered for inclusion in the review. Only assessments of hospitals were considered. Quality gaps were classified as regarding case management in maternal care, case management in neonatal care, hospital infrastructure, hospital policies and according to severity and frequency. Quotations from women regarding key issues in effective communication, respect and dignity, emotional support and costs incurred were selected. RESULTS: In the period 2009-2017, use of the WHO QA/QI MN tool was documented in 25 countries, belonging to Central and Eastern Europe (8), Central Asia (4), Sub-Saharan Africa (11), Latin America (1) and Middle East (1). Overall, 133 hospitals were assessed. The tool allowed to identify in great detail serious quality gaps including: insufficient or incomplete adherence to recommended evidence-based procedures for normal childbirth and maternal and neonatal complications; excess of inappropriate or unnecessary interventions; insufficient infection control; failure to provide respectful care, adequate communication and emotional support to mothers and babies; poor use of information generated locally to analyse processes and outcomes. These gaps were observed in all countries. Significant differences were observed among facilities belonging to the same health systems, ie, with very similar staffing, infrastructure and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: The experience made, the largest of this kind, provides comprehensive and detailed insight into the existing quality gaps in a wide variety of settings. QI cycles at facility level should be primarily based on assessments made by multidisciplinary teams of professionals to identify the parts of the care pathways which require improvement through a participatory approach involving managers, staff and patients.

Quality of maternal and neonatal care in Albania, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan: a systematic, standard-based, participatory assessment.

BACKGROUND: Progress in maternal and neonatal mortality has been slow in many countries despite increasing access to institutional births, suggesting deficiencies in the quality of care. We carried out a systematic assessment of the quality of maternal and newborn care in three CEE/CIS countries, using an innovative approach to identify priority issues and promote action. METHODS: A standard-based tool, covering over 400 items grouped in 13 main areas ranging from support services to case management, was used to assess a sample of ten maternity hospitals in Albania, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Sources of information were visit to services, medical records, observation of cases, and interviews with staff and mothers. A score (range 0 to 3) was attributed to each item and area of care. The assessment was carried out by a multidisciplinary team of international and national professionals. Local managers and staff provided the necessary information and were involved in discussing the findings and the priority actions. RESULTS: Quality of care was found to be substandard in all 13 areas. The lowest scores (between one and two) were obtained by: management of normal labour, delivery, obstetric complications and sick babies; infection prevention; use of guidelines and audits; monitoring and follow-up. Neonatal care as a whole scored better than obstetric care. Interviewed mothers identified lack of information, insufficient support during labour and lack of companionship as main issues. Actions to improve quality of care were identified at facility as well as at central level and framed according to main health system functions. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of care is a key issue to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes, particularly in countries such as CEE/CIS where access to institutional births is nearly universal. Approaches that involve health professionals and managers in comprehensive, action-oriented assessments of quality of care are promising and should be further supported.