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.
Journal
Journal of global health
ISSN: 2047-2986
Titre abrégé: J Glob Health
Pays: Scotland
ID NLM: 101578780
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
6
1
2021
pubmed:
7
1
2021
medline:
4
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33403105
doi: 10.7189/jogh.10.020433
pii: jogh-10-020433
pmc: PMC7750017
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
020433Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by the Journal of Global Health. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: AB was Programme manager, Making Pregnancy Safer, WHO European Office from 2001 to 2011. GT, SH, DJ, AM, GS, and FU received consultancy fees for taking part in some of the quality assessment and improving activities. The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Lancet Glob Health. 2019 May;7(5):e624-e632
pubmed: 30898495
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1045-9
pubmed: 25929823
Implement Sci. 2014 Oct 06;9:152
pubmed: 25287951
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 17;11:CD011558
pubmed: 29148566
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Jul;114(1):4-9
pubmed: 21621681
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 22;8(10):e78282
pubmed: 24167616
Reprod Health. 2014 Sep 4;11 Suppl 2:S4
pubmed: 25208539
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1196-e1252
pubmed: 30196093
Reprod Health. 2014 Sep 4;11 Suppl 2:S5
pubmed: 25208572
PLoS One. 2016 May 02;11(5):e0153391
pubmed: 27135248
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
BMJ. 2018 Jul 30;362:k2813
pubmed: 30061366
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1144-e1145
pubmed: 30196091
Midwifery. 2019 Jun;73:26-34
pubmed: 30856528