Health care workers' experiences of calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya.

BACKGROUND: When caring for critically ill patients, health workers often need to 'call-for-help' to get assistance from colleagues in the hospital. Systems are required to facilitate calling-for-help and enable the timely provision of care for critically ill patients. Evidence around calling-for-help systems is mostly from high income countries and the state of calling-for-help in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya has not been formally studied. This study aims to describe health workers' experiences about calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya. METHODS: Ten hospitals across Kenya and Tanzania were visited and in-depth interviews conducted with 30 health workers who had experience of caring for critically ill patients. The interviews were transcribed, translated and the data thematically analyzed. RESULTS: The study identified three thematic areas concerning the systems for calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients: 1) Calling-for-help structures: there is lack of functioning structures for calling-for-help; 2) Calling-for-help processes: the calling-for-help processes are innovative and improvised; and 3) Calling-for-help outcomes: the help that is provided is not as requested. CONCLUSION: Calling-for-help when taking care of a critically ill patient is a necessary life-saving part of care, but health workers in Tanzanian and Kenyan hospitals experience a range of significant challenges. Hospitals lack functioning structures, processes for calling-for-help are improvised and help that is provided is not as requested. These challenges likely cause delays and decrease the quality of care, potentially resulting in unnecessary mortality and morbidity.

Hospital readiness for the provision of care to critically ill patients in Tanzania- an in-depth cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and potential for reversibility. The burden of critical illness is high, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Critical care can be provided as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC)- the effective, low-cost, basic care that all critically ill patients should receive in all parts of all hospitals in the world- and advanced critical care- complex, resource-intensive care usually provided in an intensive care unit. The required resources may be available in the hospital and yet not be ready in the wards for immediate use for critically ill patients. The ward readiness of these resources, although harder to evaluate, is likely more important than their availability in the hospital. This study aimed to assess the ward readiness for EECC and the hospital availability of resources for EECC and for advanced critical care in hospitals in Tanzania. METHODS: An in-depth, cross-sectional study was conducted in five purposively selected hospitals by visiting all wards to collect data on all the required 66 EECC and 161 advanced critical care resources. We defined hospital-availability as a resource present in the hospital and ward-readiness as a resource available, functioning, and present in the right place, time and amounts for critically ill patient care in the wards. Data were analyzed to calculate availability and readiness scores as proportions of the resources that were available at hospital level, and ready at ward level respectively. RESULTS: Availability of EECC resources in hospitals was 84% and readiness in the wards was 56%. District hospitals had lower readiness scores (less than 50%) than regional and tertiary hospitals. Equipment readiness was highest (65%) while that of guidelines lowest (3%). Availability of advanced critical care resources was 31%. CONCLUSION: Hospitals in Tanzania lack readiness for the provision of EECC- the low-cost, life-saving care for critically ill patients. The resources for EECC were available in hospitals, but were not ready for the immediate needs of critically ill patients in the wards. To provide effective EECC to all patients, improvements are needed around the essential, low-cost resources in hospital wards that are essential for decreasing preventable deaths.

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.

Assessment of strategic healthcare purchasing and financial autonomy in Tanzania: the case of results-based financing and health basket fund.

Background: Low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) are implementing health financing reforms toward Universal Health Coverage (UHC). In Tanzania direct health facility financing of health basket funds (DHFF-HBF) scheme was introduced in 2017/18, while the results-based financing (RBF) scheme was introduced in 2016. The DHFF-HBF involves a direct transfer of pooled donor funds (Health Basket Funds, HBF) from the central government to public primary healthcare-PHC (including a few selected non-public PHC with a service agreement) facilities bank accounts, while the RBF involves paying providers based on pre-defined performance indicators or targets in PHC facilities. We consider whether these two reforms align with strategic healthcare purchasing principles by describing and comparing their purchasing arrangements and associated financial autonomy. Methods: We used document review and qualitative methods. Key policy documents and articles related to strategic purchasing and financial autonomy were reviewed. In-depth interviews were conducted with health managers and providers (n = 31) from 25 public facilities, health managers (n = 4) in the Mwanza region (implementing DHFF-HBF and RBF), and national-level stakeholders (n = 2). In this paper, we describe and compare DHFF-HBF and RBF in terms of four functions of strategic purchasing (benefit specification, contracting, payment method, and performance monitoring), but also compare the degree of purchaser-provider split and financial autonomy. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results: The RBF paid facilities based on 17 health services and 18 groups of quality indicators, whilst the DHFF-HBF payment accounts for performance on two quality indicators, six service indicators, distance from district headquarters, and population catchment size. Both schemes purchased services from PHC facilities (dispensaries, health centers, and district hospitals). RBF uses a fee-for-service payment adjusted by the quality of care score method adjusted by quality of care score, while the DHFF-HBF scheme uses a formula-based capitation payment method with adjustors. Unlike DHFF-HBF which relies on an annual general auditing process, the RBF involved more detailed and intensive performance monitoring including data before verification prior to payment across all facilities on a quarterly basis. RBF scheme had a clear purchaser-provider split arrangement compared to a partial arrangement under the DHFF-HBF scheme. Study participants reported that the RBF scheme provided more autonomy on spending facility funds, while the DHFF-HBF scheme was less flexible due to a budget ceiling on specific spending items. Conclusion: Both RBF and DHFF-HBF considered most of the strategic healthcare purchasing principles, but further efforts are needed to strengthen the alignment towards UHC. This may include further strengthening the data verification process and spending autonomy for DHFF-HBF, although it is important to contain costs associated with verification and ensuring public financial management around spending autonomy.

Receive, Sustain, and Flow: A simple heuristic for facilitating the identification and treatment of critically ill patients during their hospital journeys.

Background: Hospital patients can become critically ill anywhere in a hospital but their survival is affected by problems of identification and adequate, timely, treatment. This is issue of particular concern in lower middle-income countries' (LMICs) hospitals where specialised units are scarce and severely under-resourced. "Cross-sectional" approaches to improving narrow, specific aspects of care will not attend to issues that affect patients' care across the length of their experience. A simpler approach to understanding key issues across the "hospital journey" could help to deliver life-saving treatments to those patients who need it, wherever they are in the facility. Methods: We carried out 31 narrative interviews with frontline health workers in five Kenyan and five Tanzanian hospitals from November 2020 to December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. We also followed 12 patient hospital journeys, through the course of treatment of very sick patients admitted to the hospitals we studied. Results: Our research explores gaps in hospital systems that result in lapses in effective, continuous care across the hospital journeys of patients in Tanzania and Kenya. We organise these factors according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) approach to patient safety, which we extend to explore how these issues affect patients across the course of care. We discern three repeating, recursive phases we term Receive, Sustain, and Flow. We use this heuristic to show how gaps and weaknesses in service provision affect critically ill patients' hospital journeys. Conclusion: Receive, Sustain, and Flow offers a heuristic for hospital management to identify and ameliorate limitations in human and technical resources for the care of the critically ill.