Health facility management and primary health care performance in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is a critical foundation of high-quality health systems. Health facility management has been studied in high-income countries, but there are significant measurement gaps about facility management and primary health care performance in low and middle-income countries. A primary health care facility management evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool) was initially piloted in Ghana where better facility management was associated with higher performance on select primary health care outcomes such as essential drug availability, trust in providers, ease of following a provider's advice, and overall patient-reported quality rating. In this study, we sought to understand health facility management within Uganda's decentralized primary health care system. METHODS: We administered and analyzed a cross-sectional household and health facility survey conducted in Uganda in 2019, assessing facility management using the PRIME-Tool. RESULTS: Better facility management was associated with better essential drug availability but not better performance on measures of stocking equipment. Facilities with better PRIME-Tool management scores trended towards better performance on a number of experiential quality measures. We found significant disparities in the management performance of primary health care facilities. In particular, patients with greater wealth and education and those living in urban areas sought care at facilities that performed better on management. Private facilities and hospitals performed better on the management index than public facilities and health centers and clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that investments in stronger facility management in Uganda may strengthen key aspects of facility readiness such as essential drug availability and potentially could affect experiential quality of care. Nevertheless, the stark disparities demonstrate that Uganda policymakers need to target investments strategically in order to improve primary health care equitably across socioeconomic status and geography. Moreover, other low and middle-income countries may benefit from the use of the PRIME-Tool to rapidly assess facility management with the goal of understanding and improving primary health care performance.

Predictors of patient-reported quality of care in low- and middle-income countries: a four-country survey of person-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Person-centeredness is a foundation of high-quality health systems but is poorly measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We piloted an online survey of four LMICs to identify the prevalence and correlates of excellent patient-reported quality of care (QOC). OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the examine people's overall ratings of care quality in relation to their experiences seeking care in their respective health systems as well as individual-, provider- and facility-level predictors. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional online survey using Random Domain Intercept Technology to collect a sample of random internet users across India, Kenya, Mexico and Nigeria in November 2016. The primary outcome was patient-reported QOC. Covariates included age, gender, level of education, urban/rural residence, person for whom care was sought, type of provider seen, public or private sector status of the health facility and type of facility. The exposure was an index of health system responsiveness based on a framework from the World Health Organization. We used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of excellent patient-reported QOC and multivariable Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for predictors of excellent patient-reported quality. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand and eight people completed the survey (22.6% completion rate). Survey respondents tended to be young, male, well-educated and urban-dwelling, reflective of the demographic of the internet-using population. Four thousand one and ninety-one (29.9%) respondents sought care in the prior 6 months. Of those, 21.8% rated their QOC as excellent. The highest proportion of respondents gave the top rating for wait time (44.6%), while the lowest proportion gave the top rating for facility cleanliness (21.7%). In an adjusted analysis, people who experienced the highest level of health system responsiveness were significantly more likely to report excellent QOC compared to those who did not (aPR 8.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.50, 9.89). In the adjusted model, urban-dwelling individuals were less likely to report excellent quality compared to rural-dwelling individuals (aPR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99). People who saw community health workers (aPR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67) and specialists (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50) were more likely to report excellent quality than those who saw primary care providers. High perceived respect from the provider or staff was most highly associated with excellent ratings of quality, while ratings of wait time corresponded the least. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported QOC is low in four LMICs, even among a well-educated, young population of internet users. Better health system responsiveness may be associated with better ratings of care quality. Improving person-centered care will be an important component of building high-quality health systems in these LMICs.

Preliminary validation of the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool), a national facility management survey implemented in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The management quality of healthcare facilities has consistently been linked to facility performance, but available tools to measure management are costly to implement, often hospital-specific, not designed for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), nor widely deployed. We addressed this gap by developing the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation Tool (PRIME-Tool), a primary health care facility management survey for integration into routine national surveys in LMICs. We present an analysis of the tool's psychometric properties and suggest directions for future improvements. METHODS: The PRIME-Tool assesses performance in five core management domains: Target setting, Operations, Human resources, Monitoring, and Community engagement. We evaluated two versions of the PRIME-Tool. We surveyed 142 primary health care (PHC) facilities in Ghana in 2016 using the first version (27 items) and 148 facilities in 2017 using the second version (34 items). We calculated floor and ceiling effects for each item and conducted exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure for each year and version of the tool. We developed a revised management framework and PRIME-tool as informed by these exploratory results, further review of management theory literature, and co-author consensus. RESULTS: The majority (17 items in 2016, 23 items in 2017) of PRIME-Tool items exhibited ceiling effects, but only three (2 items in 2016, 3 items in 2017) showed floor effects. Solutions suggested by factor analyses did not fully fit our initial hypothesized management domains. We found five groupings of items that consistently loaded together across each analysis and named these revised domains as Supportive supervision and target setting, Active monitoring and review, Community engagement, Client feedback for improvement, and Operations and financing. CONCLUSION: The revised version of the PRIME-Tool captures a range of important and actionable information on the management of PHC facilities in LMIC contexts. We recommend its use by other investigators and practitioners to further validate its utility in PHC settings. We will continue to refine the PRIME-Tool to arrive at a parsimonious tool for tracking PHC facility management quality. Better understanding the functional components of PHC facility management can help policymakers and frontline managers drive evidence-based improvements in performance.

Primary Health Care as a Foundation for Strengthening Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Primary health care (PHC) has been recognized as a core component of effective health systems since the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite notable progress, there remains a large gap between what individuals and communities need, and the quality and effectiveness of care delivered. The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) was established by an international consortium to catalyze improvements in PHC delivery and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries through better measurement and sharing of effective models and practices. PHCPI has developed a framework to illustrate the relationship between key financing, workforce, and supply inputs, and core primary health care functions of first-contact accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and person-centeredness. The framework provides guidance for more effective assessment of current strengths and gaps in PHC delivery through a core set of 25 key indicators ("Vital Signs"). Emerging best practices that foster high-performing PHC system development are being codified and shared around low- and high-income countries. These measurement and improvement approaches provide countries and implementers with tools to assess the current state of their PHC delivery system and to identify where cross-country learning can accelerate improvements in PHC quality and effectiveness.

Better Measurement for Performance Improvement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) Experience of Conceptual Framework Development and Indicator Selection.

Policy Points: Strengthening accountability through better measurement and reporting is vital to ensure progress in improving quality primary health care (PHC) systems and achieving universal health coverage (UHC). The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) provides national decision makers and global stakeholders with opportunities to benchmark and accelerate performance improvement through better performance measurement. Results from the initial PHC performance assessments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are helping guide PHC reforms and investments and improve the PHCPI's instruments and indicators. Findings from future assessment activities will further amplify cross-country comparisons and peer learning to improve PHC. New indicators and sources of data are needed to better understand PHC system performance in LMICs. CONTEXT: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI), a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Bank, and the World Health Organization, in partnership with Ariadne Labs and Results for Development, was launched in 2015 with the aim of catalyzing improvements in primary health care (PHC) systems in 135 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in order to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage. Through more comprehensive and actionable measurement of quality PHC, the PHCPI stimulates peer learning among LMICs and informs decision makers to guide PHC investments and reforms. Instruments for performance assessment and improvement are in development; to date, a conceptual framework and 2 sets of performance indicators have been released. METHODS: The PHCPI team developed the conceptual framework through literature reviews and consultations with an advisory committee of international experts. We generated 2 sets of performance indicators selected from a literature review of relevant indicators, cross-referenced against indicators available from international sources, and evaluated through 2 separate modified Delphi processes, consisting of online surveys and in-person facilitated discussions with experts. FINDINGS: The PHCPI conceptual framework builds on the current understanding of PHC system performance through an expanded emphasis on the role of service delivery. The first set of performance indicators, 36 Vital Signs, facilitates comparisons across countries and over time. The second set, 56 Diagnostic Indicators, elucidates underlying drivers of performance. Key challenges include a lack of available data for several indicators and a lack of validated indicators for important dimensions of quality PHC. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of data is critical to assessing PHC performance, particularly patient experience and quality of care. The PHCPI will continue to develop and test additional performance assessment instruments, including composite indices and national performance dashboards. Through country engagement, the PHCPI will further refine its instruments and engage with governments to better design and finance primary health care reforms.

Methods used in prevalence studies of disrespect and abuse during facility based childbirth: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have attempted to measure the prevalence of disrespect and abuse (D&A) of women during childbirth in health facilities. Variations in reported prevalence may be associated with differences in study instruments and data collection methods. This systematic review and comparative analysis of methods aims to aggregate and present lessons learned from published studies that quantified the prevalence of Disrespect and Abuse (D&A) during childbirth. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Five papers met criteria and were included for analysis. We developed an analytical framework depicting the basic elements of epidemiological methodology in prevalence studies and a table of common types of systematic error associated with each of them. We performed a head-to-head comparison of study methods for all five papers. Using these tools, an independent reviewer provided an analysis of the potential for systematic error in the reported prevalence estimates. RESULTS: Sampling techniques, eligibility criteria, categories of D&A selected for study, operational definitions of D&A, summary measures of D&A, and the mode, timing, and setting of data collection all varied in the five studies included in the review. These variations present opportunities for the introduction of biases - in particular selection, courtesy, and recall bias - and challenge the ability to draw comparisons across the studies' results. CONCLUSION: Our review underscores the need for caution in interpreting or comparing previously reported prevalence estimates of D&A during facility-based childbirth. The lack of standardized definitions, instruments, and study methods used to date in studies designed to quantify D&A in childbirth facilities introduced the potential for systematic error in reported prevalence estimates, and affected their generalizability and comparability. Chief among the lessons to emerge from comparing methods for measuring the prevalence of D&A is recognition of the tension between seeking prevalence measures that are reliable and generalizable, and attempting to avoid loss of validity in the context where the issue is being studied.

The prevalence of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth in urban Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, rates of facility-based childbirth have increased substantially in recent years. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the acceptability and quality of maternal health services provided at facilities and, consequently, maternal health outcomes have not improved as expected. Disrespect and abuse during childbirth is increasingly being recognized as an indicator of overall poor quality of care and as a key barrier to achieving improved maternal health outcomes, but little evidence exists to describe the scope and magnitude of this problem, particularly in urban areas in low-income countries. METHODS: This paper presents findings from an assessment of the prevalence of disrespectful and abusive behaviors during facility-based childbirth in one large referral hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Client reports of disrespect and abuse (D&A) were obtained through postpartum interviews immediately before discharge from the facility with 1914 systematically sampled women and from community follow-up interviews with 64 women four to six weeks post-delivery. Additionally, 197 direct observations of the labor, delivery, and postpartum period were conducted to document specific incidences of disrespect and abuse during labor and delivery, which we compared with women's reports. RESULTS: During postpartum interviews, 15 % of women reported experiencing at least one instance of D&A. This number was dramatically higher during community follow-up interviews, in which 70 % of women reported any experience of D&A. During postpartum interviews, the most common forms of D&A reported were abandonment (8 %), non-dignified care (6 %), and physical abuse (5 %), while reporting for all categories of D&A, excluding detention and non consented care, was above 50 % during community follow-up interviews. Evidence from direct observations of client-provider interactions during labor and delivery confirmed high rates of some disrespectful and abusive behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to quantify the prevalence of disrespect and abuse during facility-based childbirth in a large public hospital in an urban setting. The difference in respondent reports between the two time periods is striking, and more research is needed to determine the most appropriate methodologies for measuring this phenomenon. The levels and types of disrespect and abuse reported here represent fundamental violations of women's human rights and are symptomatic of failing health systems. Action is urgently needed to ensure acceptable, quality, and dignified care for all women.

Applying a participatory approach to the promotion of a culture of respect during childbirth.

Disrespect and abuse (D&A) during facility-based childbirth is a topic of growing concern and attention globally. Several recent studies have sought to quantify the prevalence of D&A, however little evidence exists about effective interventions to mitigate disrespect and abuse, and promote respectful maternity care. In an accompanying article, we describe the process of selecting, implementing, and evaluating a package of interventions designed to prevent and reduce disrespect and abuse in a large urban hospital in Tanzania. Though that study was not powered to detect a definitive impact on reducing D&A, the results showed important changes in intermediate outcomes associated with this goal. In this commentary, we describe the factors that enabled this effect, especially the participatory approach we adopted to engage key stakeholders throughout the planning and implementation of the program. Based on our experience and findings, we conclude that a visible, sustained, and participatory intervention process; committed facility leadership; management support; and staff engagement throughout the project contributed to a marked change in the culture of the hospital to one that values and promotes respectful maternity care. For these changes to translate into dignified care during childbirth for all women in a sustainable fashion, institutional commitment to providing the necessary resources and staff will be needed.

Mitigating disrespect and abuse during childbirth in Tanzania: an exploratory study of the effects of two facility-based interventions in a large public hospital.

BACKGROUND: There is emerging evidence that disrespect and abuse (D&A) during facility-based childbirth is prevalent in countries throughout the world and a barrier to achieving good maternal health outcomes. However, much work remains in the identification of effective interventions to prevent and eliminate D&A during facility-based childbirth. This paper describes an exploratory study conducted in a large referral hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania that sought to measure D&A, introduce a package of interventions to reduce its incidence, and evaluate their effectiveness. METHODS: After extensive consultation with critical constituencies, two discrete interventions were implemented: (1) Open Birth Days (OBD), a birth preparedness and antenatal care education program, and (2) a workshop for healthcare providers based on the Health Workers for Change curriculum. Each intervention was designed to increase knowledge of patient rights and birth preparedness; increase and improve patient-provider and provider-administrator communication; and improve women's experience and provider attitudes. The effects of the interventions were assessed using a pre-post design and a range of tools: pre-post questionnaires for OBD participants and pre-post questionnaires for workshop participants; structured interviews with healthcare providers and administrators; structured interviews with women who gave birth at the study facility; and direct observations of patient-provider interactions during labor and delivery. RESULTS: Comparisons before and after the interventions showed an increase in patient and provider knowledge of user rights across multiple dimensions, as well as women's knowledge of the labor and delivery process. Women reported feeling better prepared for delivery and provider attitudes towards them improved, with providers reporting higher levels of empathy for the women they serve and better interpersonal relationships. Patients and providers reported improved communication, which direct observations confirmed. Additionally, women reported feeling more empowered and confident during delivery. Provider job satisfaction increased substantially from baseline levels, as did user reports of satisfaction and perceptions of care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, the outcomes of this study indicate that the tested interventions have the potential to be successful in promoting outcomes that are prerequisite to reducing disrespect and abuse. However, a more rigorous evaluation is needed to determine the full impact of these interventions.

Strengthening data collection and use for quality improvement in primary care: the case of Costa Rica.

Costa Rica is a bright spot of primary healthcare (PHC) performance, providing first-contact accessibility and continuous, comprehensive, coordinated, and patient-centered care to its citizens. Previous research hypothesized that strong data collection and use for quality improvement are central to Costa Rica's success. Using qualitative data from 40 interviews with stakeholders across the Costa Rican healthcare system, this paper maps the various data streams at the PHC level and delineates how these data are used to make decisions around insuring and improving the quality of PHC delivery. We describe four main types of PHC data: individual patient data, population health data, national healthcare delivery data, and local supplementary healthcare delivery data. In particular, we find that the Healthcare Delivery Performance Index-a ranking of the nation's 106 Health Areas using 15 quality indicators-is utilized by Health Area Directors to create quality improvement initiatives, ranging from education and coaching to optimization of care delivery and coordination. By ranking Health Areas, the Index harnesses providers' intrinsic motivation to stimulate improvement without financial incentives. We detail how a strong culture of valuing data as a tool for improving population health and robust training for personnel have enabled effective data collection and use. However, we also find that the country's complex data systems create unnecessary duplication and can inhibit efficient data use. Costa Rica's experience with data collection, analysis, and use for quality improvement hold important lessons for PHC in other public sector systems.