Political and technical barriers to improving quality of health care

Potentials and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries

Co-design with people having poor access to health services and fragile health systems in low- and middle-income countries can be momentous in bringing service users and other stakeholders together to improve the delivery and utilisation of health services. There is ample of evidence from high-income countries regarding how co-design can translate available evidence into developing acceptable, feasible, and adaptable health solutions in different settings. However, there is limited literature on co-design in health research in the context of low- and middle-income countries. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how knowledge about collaborative working can be translated into policy and practice in the context of low- and middle-income countries. Thus, this paper discusses the concept of co-design, co-production, and co-creation in health and the potentiality and challenges of using co-design in health services research in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the challenges, the co-design research has considerable potential to encourage the meaningful engagement of service users and other stakeholders in developing, implementing, and evaluating real-world solutions in low- and middle-income countries. It is essential to balance power dynamics in a co-design process through mutual recognition and respect, participant diversity, and reciprocity and flexibility in sharing. The inclusive and collaborative approach to working is complex due to existing rigid hierarchical structures, socio-cultural beliefs, political interference and working practices. However, this could be minimised by developing transparent terms of reference that reflect the value and benefits of equal partnership in particular co-design work.

Perspectives of Public and Private Primary Healthcare Users in Two Regions of Albania on Non-Clinical Quality of Care

Background:

Aiming to tackle the rise of non-communicable diseases and an ageing population, Albania is engaged in boosting primary healthcare services and quality of care. The patients’ perspectives on their experience with public and private providers are, however, missing, although their viewpoints are critical while shaping the developing services. Consequently, we analyze perceptions of users of primary healthcare as it relates to non-clinical quality of care and the association to sociodemographic characteristics of patients and the type of provider.

Methods:

A facility-based survey was conducted in 2018 using the World Health Organization responsiveness questionnaire which is based on a 4-point scale along with 8 non-clinical domains of quality of care. The data of 954 patients were analyzed through descriptive statistics and linear mixed regression models.

Results:

Similar mean values were reported on total scale of the quality of care for private and public providers, also after sociodemographic adjustments. The highest mean score was reported for the domain “communication” (3.75) followed by “dignity” (3.65), while the lowest mean scores were given for “choice” (2.89) and “prompt attention” (3.00). Urban governmental PHC services were rated significantly better than private outpatient clinics in “coordination of care” (2.90 vs 2.12, P < .001). In contrast, private outpatient clinics were judged significantly better than urban PHC clinics in “confidentiality” (3.77 vs 3.38, P = .04) and “quality of basic amenities” (3.70 vs 3.02, P < .001). “Autonomy” was reported as least important attribute of quality.

Conclusion:

While the perception of non-clinical care quality was found to be high and similar for public and private providers, promptness and coordination of care require attention to meet patient’s expectations on good quality of care. There is a need to raise the awareness on autonomy and the involvement of patients’ aspects concerning their health.

Is enhancing the professionalism of healthcare providers critical to tackling antimicrobial resistance in low- and middle-income countries?

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers' (HCPs) professionalism refers to their commitment and ability to respond to the health needs of the communities they serve and to act in the best interest of patients. Despite attention to increasing the number of HCPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the quality of professional education delivered to HCPs and their resulting professionalism has been neglected. The Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) seeks to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics by urging patients to access antibiotics only through qualified HCPs, on the premise that qualified HCPs will act as more responsible and competent gatekeepers of access to antibiotics than unqualified HCPs.

METHODS

We investigate whether weaknesses in HCP professionalism result in boundaries between qualified HCPs and unqualified providers being blurred, and how these weaknesses impact inappropriate provision of antibiotics by HCPs in two LMIC with increasing AMR-Pakistan and Cambodia. We conducted 85 in-depth interviews with HCPs, policymakers, and pharmaceutical industry representatives. Our thematic analysis was based on a conceptual framework of four components of professionalism and focused on identifying recurring findings in both countries.

RESULTS

Despite many cultural and sociodemographic differences between Cambodia and Pakistan, there was a consistent finding that the behaviour of many qualified HCPs did not reflect their professional education. Our analysis identified five areas in which strengthening HCP education could enhance professionalism and reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics: updating curricula to better cover the need for appropriate use of antibiotics; imparting stronger communication skills to manage patient demand for medications; inculcating essential professional ethics; building skills required for effective collaboration between doctors, pharmacists, and lay HCPs; and ensuring access to (unbiased) continuing medical education.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the weaknesses in HCP professionalism identified, we conclude that global guidelines urging patients to only seek care at qualified HCPs should consider whether HCP professional education is equipping them to act in the best interest of the patient and society. Our findings suggest that improvements to HCP professional education are needed urgently and that these should focus not only on the curriculum content and learning methods, but also on the social purpose of graduates.

A learning health systems approach to improving the quality of care for patients in South Asia

Poor quality of care is a leading cause of excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). Improving the quality of healthcare is complex, and requires an interdisciplinary team equipped with the skills to design, implement and analyse setting-relevant improvement interventions. Such capacity is limited in many LMICs. However, training for healthcare workers in quality improvement (QI) methodology without buy-in from multidisciplinary stakeholders and without identifying setting-specific priorities is unlikely to be successful. The Care Quality Improvement Network (CQIN) was established between Network for Improving Critical care Systems and Training (NICST) and University College London Centre for Perioperative Medicine, with the aim of building capacity for research and QI. A two-day international workshop, in collaboration with the College of Surgeons of Sri Lanka, was conducted to address the above deficits. Innovatively, the CQIN adopts a learning health systems (LHS) approach to improving care by leveraging information captured through the NICST electronic multi-centre acute and critical care surveillance platform. Fifty-two delegates from across the CQIN representing clinical, civic and academic healthcare stakeholders from six countries attended the workshop. Mapping of care processes enabled identification of barriers and drivers to the delivery of care and facilitated the selection of feasible QI methods and matrices. Six projects, reflecting key priorities for improving the delivery of acute care in Asia, were collaboratively developed: improving assessment of postoperative pain; optimising sedation in critical care; refining referral of deteriorating patients; reducing surgical site infection after caesarean section; reducing surgical site infection after elective general surgery; and improving provision of timely electrocardiogram recording for patients presenting with signs of acute myocardial infarction. Future project implementation and evaluation will be supported with resources and expertise from the CQIN partners. This LHS approach to building capacity for QI may be of interest to others seeing to improve care in LMICs.