Health service quality in 2929 facilities in six low-income and middle-income countries: a positive deviance analysis.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
14
10
2022
revised:
08
03
2023
accepted:
16
03
2023
medline:
22
5
2023
pubmed:
19
5
2023
entrez:
18
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Primary care is of insufficient quality in many low-income and middle-income countries. Some health facilities perform better than others despite operating in similar contexts, although the factors that characterise best performance are not well known. Existing best-performance analyses are concentrated in high-income countries and focus on hospitals. We used the positive deviance approach to identify the factors that differentiate best from worst primary care performance among health facilities across six low-resource health systems. This positive deviance analysis used nationally representative samples of public and private health facilities from Service Provision Assessments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Senegal, and Tanzania. Data were collected starting June 11, 2013, in Malawi and ending Feb 28, 2020, in Senegal. We assessed facility performance through completion of the Good Medical Practice Index (GMPI) of essential clinical actions (eg, taking a thorough history, conducting an adequate physical examination) according to clinical guidelines and measured with direct observations of care. We identified hospitals and clinics in the top decile of performance (defined as best performers) and conducted a quantitative, cross-national positive deviance analysis to compare them with facilities performing below the median (defined as worst performers) and identify facility-level factors that explain the gap between best and worst performance. We identified 132 best-performing and 664 worst-performing hospitals, and 355 best-performing and 1778 worst-performing clinics based on clinical performance across countries. The mean GMPI score was 0·81 (SD 0·07) for the best-performing hospitals and 0·44 (0·09) for the worst-performing hospitals. Among clinics, mean GMPI scores were 0·75 (0·07) for the best performers and 0·34 (0·10) for the worst performers. High-quality governance, management, and community engagement were associated with best performance compared with worst performance. Private facilities out-performed government-owned hospitals and clinics. Our findings suggest that best-performing health facilities are characterised by good management and leaders who can engage staff and community members. Governments should look to best performers to identify scalable practices and conditions for success that can improve primary care quality overall and decrease quality gaps between health facilities. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Primary care is of insufficient quality in many low-income and middle-income countries. Some health facilities perform better than others despite operating in similar contexts, although the factors that characterise best performance are not well known. Existing best-performance analyses are concentrated in high-income countries and focus on hospitals. We used the positive deviance approach to identify the factors that differentiate best from worst primary care performance among health facilities across six low-resource health systems.
METHODS
This positive deviance analysis used nationally representative samples of public and private health facilities from Service Provision Assessments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Malawi, Nepal, Senegal, and Tanzania. Data were collected starting June 11, 2013, in Malawi and ending Feb 28, 2020, in Senegal. We assessed facility performance through completion of the Good Medical Practice Index (GMPI) of essential clinical actions (eg, taking a thorough history, conducting an adequate physical examination) according to clinical guidelines and measured with direct observations of care. We identified hospitals and clinics in the top decile of performance (defined as best performers) and conducted a quantitative, cross-national positive deviance analysis to compare them with facilities performing below the median (defined as worst performers) and identify facility-level factors that explain the gap between best and worst performance.
FINDINGS
We identified 132 best-performing and 664 worst-performing hospitals, and 355 best-performing and 1778 worst-performing clinics based on clinical performance across countries. The mean GMPI score was 0·81 (SD 0·07) for the best-performing hospitals and 0·44 (0·09) for the worst-performing hospitals. Among clinics, mean GMPI scores were 0·75 (0·07) for the best performers and 0·34 (0·10) for the worst performers. High-quality governance, management, and community engagement were associated with best performance compared with worst performance. Private facilities out-performed government-owned hospitals and clinics.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings suggest that best-performing health facilities are characterised by good management and leaders who can engage staff and community members. Governments should look to best performers to identify scalable practices and conditions for success that can improve primary care quality overall and decrease quality gaps between health facilities.
FUNDING
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37202022
pii: S2214-109X(23)00163-8
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00163-8
pmc: PMC10205971
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e862-e870Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.
Références
BMC Fam Pract. 2020 Dec 6;21(1):261
pubmed: 33280608
Bull World Health Organ. 2020 Nov 01;98(11):735-746D
pubmed: 33177770
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jun 01;95(6):408-418
pubmed: 28603307
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1176-e1185
pubmed: 30322648
Health Aff (Millwood). 2016 Sep 1;35(9):1716-24
pubmed: 27605655
Am J Public Health. 2015 Mar;105(3):431-7
pubmed: 25602898
Lancet. 2005 Sep 17-23;366(9490):1026-35
pubmed: 16168785
Health Policy Plan. 2018 Jan 1;33(1):41-58
pubmed: 29077844
Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Aug;34(8):1304-11
pubmed: 26240243
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Nov 26;3(6):e001011
pubmed: 30555726
Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502
pubmed: 16202000
Health Policy Plan. 2015 May;30(4):485-99
pubmed: 24829316
Implement Sci. 2009 May 08;4:25
pubmed: 19426507
Soc Sci Med. 2022 Sep;309:115251
pubmed: 35961216
PLoS One. 2019 Jul 2;14(7):e0218662
pubmed: 31265454
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 12;17(12):
pubmed: 32545564
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(6):904-11
pubmed: 20089341
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 13;17(1):403
pubmed: 28610626
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Jun 24;15:244
pubmed: 26104760
Lancet. 2018 Oct 20;392(10156):1369
pubmed: 30343840
Trop Med Int Health. 2019 May;24(5):620-635
pubmed: 30821062
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Nov;6(11):e1196-e1252
pubmed: 30196093
PLoS Med. 2017 Dec 12;14(12):e1002464
pubmed: 29232377
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan;28(1):74-84
pubmed: 30045864