Assessing quality of newborn care at district facilities in Malawi.
District hospitals
Malawi
Neonatal care
Quality of care
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Mar 2020
18 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
12
09
2019
accepted:
02
03
2020
entrez:
19
3
2020
pubmed:
19
3
2020
medline:
22
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Malawi is celebrated as one of the few countries in sub-Saharan Africa to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing under-5 mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. However, within this age range neonatal mortality rates are the slowest to decline, even though rates of facility births are increasing. Examining the quality of neonatal care at district-level facilities where most deliveries occur is warranted. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the quality of neonatal care in three district hospitals and one primary health centre in southern Malawi as well as to report the limitations and lessons learned on using the WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool. These facility assessments were part of the "Integrating a neonatal healthcare package for Malawi" project, a part of the Innovating for Maternal and Child Health in Africa (IMCHA) initiative. The WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool was used to assess quality of care and availability and quantity of supplies and resources. The modules on infrastructure, neonatal care and labour and delivery were included. Facility assessments were administered in November 2017 and aspects of care were scored on a Likert scale from one to five (a score of 5 indicating compliance with WHO standards of care; one as lowest indicating inadequate care). The continuum of labour, delivery and neonatal care were assessed to identify areas that required improvements to meet standards of care. Critical areas for improvements included infection control (mean score 2.9), equipment, supplies and setup for newborn care in the labor ward (2.3), in the surgical theater (3.3), and nursery (3.4 nursery facilities, 3.0 supplies and equipment), as well as for management of sick newborns (3.2), monitoring and follow-up (3.6). Only one of the 12 domains, laboratory, met the standards of care with only minor improvements needed (4.0). The WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool is a validated tool that can shed light on the complex quality of care challenges faced by district-level health facilities. The results reveal that the quality of care needs improvement, particularly for sick and vulnerable newborns.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Malawi is celebrated as one of the few countries in sub-Saharan Africa to meet the Millennium Development Goal of reducing under-5 mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015. However, within this age range neonatal mortality rates are the slowest to decline, even though rates of facility births are increasing. Examining the quality of neonatal care at district-level facilities where most deliveries occur is warranted.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the quality of neonatal care in three district hospitals and one primary health centre in southern Malawi as well as to report the limitations and lessons learned on using the WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool.
METHODS
METHODS
These facility assessments were part of the "Integrating a neonatal healthcare package for Malawi" project, a part of the Innovating for Maternal and Child Health in Africa (IMCHA) initiative. The WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool was used to assess quality of care and availability and quantity of supplies and resources. The modules on infrastructure, neonatal care and labour and delivery were included. Facility assessments were administered in November 2017 and aspects of care were scored on a Likert scale from one to five (a score of 5 indicating compliance with WHO standards of care; one as lowest indicating inadequate care).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The continuum of labour, delivery and neonatal care were assessed to identify areas that required improvements to meet standards of care. Critical areas for improvements included infection control (mean score 2.9), equipment, supplies and setup for newborn care in the labor ward (2.3), in the surgical theater (3.3), and nursery (3.4 nursery facilities, 3.0 supplies and equipment), as well as for management of sick newborns (3.2), monitoring and follow-up (3.6). Only one of the 12 domains, laboratory, met the standards of care with only minor improvements needed (4.0).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The WHO integrated quality of care assessment tool is a validated tool that can shed light on the complex quality of care challenges faced by district-level health facilities. The results reveal that the quality of care needs improvement, particularly for sick and vulnerable newborns.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32183795
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5065-2
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-5065-2
pmc: PMC7079536
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227Subventions
Organisme : International Development Research Centre
ID : 108030
Références
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Feb 1;29(1):55-62
pubmed: 27836999
Lancet. 2012 Jun 9;379(9832):2162-72
pubmed: 22682464
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S5
pubmed: 24625233
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 22;8(10):e78282
pubmed: 24167616
Lancet Glob Health. 2016 Mar;4(3):e201-14
pubmed: 26805586
Acta Inform Med. 2012 Dec;20(4):226-34
pubmed: 23378688
J Glob Health. 2017 Dec;7(2):020509
pubmed: 29423186
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S4
pubmed: 24625215
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 27;7(3):e014680
pubmed: 28348194
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 12;10(2):e0117229
pubmed: 25675342
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Aug 25;17(1):271
pubmed: 28841850
Semin Perinatol. 2010 Dec;34(6):371-86
pubmed: 21094412
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jun 1;95(6):397-407
pubmed: 28603306
PLoS Med. 2016 Oct 18;13(10):e1002151
pubmed: 27755547
Health Policy Plan. 2012 Jul;27 Suppl 3:iii88-103
pubmed: 22692419
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S6
pubmed: 24625252
Lancet. 2005 Mar 26-Apr 1;365(9465):1175-88
pubmed: 15794973
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 30;382(5):397-400
pubmed: 31995684
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Jun 18;69(1):61-68
pubmed: 30277505
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28944
pubmed: 22174932