The number of dispensing doctors has increased in the last decade, but the implication of this trend on the quality of health care and drug use is unknown. We present a comparative drug utilization study of 29 dispensing doctors and 28 non-dispensing doctors in Zimbabwe based on standard indicators developed by the World Health Organization. Dispensing doctors prescribed significantly more drugs per patient than non-dispensing doctors (2.3 versus 1.7), injected more patients (28.4% versus 9.5%), and prescribed more antibiotics (0.72 versus 0.54) and mixtures (0.43 versus 0.25) per encounter. Dispensing doctors also spent significantly less time on each encounter (8.7 min versus 13.0 min) than their non-dispensing colleagues. The use of generic name, brand name and essential drugs did not differ significantly between the two groups of practitioners. Multivariate analyses controlling for gender, race, place of education, location of practice and patients seen per day showed that dispensing by doctors was associated with less clinically and economically appropriate prescribing. These findings suggest that the quality of health care--as related to drug use, patient safety and treatment cost--is lower with dispensing doctors than with non-dispensing doctors.

Ensuring the availability of essential drugs and using them appropriately are crucial if limited resources for health care are to be used optimally. While training of health workers throughout Zimbabwe in drug management (including stock management and rational drug use) resulted in significant improvements in a variety of drug use indicators, these achievements could not be sustained, and a new strategy was introduced based on the supervision of primary health care providers. This was launched in 1995 with a training course in supervisory skills for district pharmacy staff. In order to evaluate the impact of the supervision and the effectiveness of the training programme, adherence to standard treatment guidelines (STG) and stock management protocols was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. The study compared three different groups of health facilities: those that received supervision for either use of STG (n = 23) or stock management (n = 21) - each facility acting as control for the other area of supervision - and a comparison group of facilities which received no supervision (n = 18). On-the-spot supervision by a specially trained pharmacy staff, based around identified deficiencies, took place at the start of the study and 3 months later. The evaluation compared performance on a variety of drug management indicators at baseline and 6-8 months after the second supervisory visit. The results of the study showed that, following supervision, overall stock management improved significantly when compared with the control and comparison groups. Similar improvements were demonstrated for adherence to STG, although the effect was confounded by other interventions. The study also showed that supervision has a positive effect on improving performance in areas other than those supervised, and demonstrated that pharmacy technicians with limited clinical skills can be trained to influence primary health care workers to positively improve prescribing practices. Allocating resources to supervision is likely to result in improved performance of health workers with regard to the rational use of essential drugs, resulting in improved efficiency and effectiveness.

BackgroundUganda introduced a multipronged intervention, the supervision, performance assessment, and recognition strategy (SPARS), to improve medicines management (MM) in public and not-for-profit health facilities. This paper, the first in a series, describes the SPARS intervention and reports on the MM situation in Uganda before SPARS (baseline).MethodsTo build MM capacity at health facilities, health workers were trained as MM supervisors to visit health facilities, assess MM performance, and use the findings to provide support and standardize MM practices. Performance is assessed based on 25 MM indicators covering five domains: dispensing quality (7 indicators), prescribing quality (5), stock management (4), storage management (5) and ordering and reporting (4). From the end of 2010 to 2013, MM supervisors assessed baseline MM performance of 1384 government (85 %) and private not-for-profit facilities at all levels of care in about half of Uganda’s districts.ResultsThe overall MM baseline median score was 10.3 out of a maximum of 25 with inter-quartile range (IQR) of 8.7–11.7. Facility domain scores (out of a maximum of 5) were as follows: storage management, median score of 2.9 (IQR 2.3–3.4); stock management 2.3 (IQR 2.0–2.8), ordering and reporting 2.2 (IQR 1.3–2.5), and dispensing quality 2.1 (IQR 1.7–2.7). Performance in prescribing quality was 0.9 (IQR 0.4–1.4). Significant regional differences were found: overall scores were highest in the Northern region (10.7; IQR 9.2–12.4) and lowest in the Eastern region (9.6; (IQR 7.8–11.2) (p < 0.001). Overall scores did not differ by facility ownership; however, government facilities scored lower in dispensing and storage and higher in ordering and reporting. Hospitals scored higher overall and in domains other than prescribing and stock management. Districts classified a priori as having high capacity for implementing SPARS had higher scores at baseline compared to lower-capacity districts.ConclusionAssessing and building national capacity in MM is needed in both private not-for-profit and government facilities at all levels of care. The indicator-based, multipronged SPARS assessment has been described here, while the strategy’s impact has yet to be documented.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40545-016-0070-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Irrational prescription for URTI is widespread by both dispensing doctors and to a lesser extent, by NDDs. Symptomatic treatments with 'a drug for each symptom' was common, particularly by the DDs. There was also over-prescription of antibiotics and use of sub-therapetitic dosages. This poly-pharmacy, poses a safety risk, a risk of development of resistance and, unnecessarily costly treatment.

BackgroundTo ascertain equity in financing for essential medicines and health supplies (EMHS) in Uganda, this paper explores the relationships among government funding allocations for EMHS, patient load, and medicines availability across facilities at different levels of care.MethodsWe collected data on EMHS allocations and availability of selected vital medicines from 43 purposively sampled hospitals and the highest level health centers (HC IV), 44 randomly selected lower-level health facilities (HC II, III), and from over 400 facility health information system records and National Medical Stores records. The data were analyzed to determine allocations per patient within and across levels of care and the effects of allocations on product availability.ResultsEMHS funding allocations per patient varied widely within facilities at the same level, and allocations per patient between levels overlapped considerably. For example, HC IV allocations per patient ranged from US$0.25 to US$2.14 (1:9 ratio of lowest to highest allocation), and over 75 % of HC IV facilities had the same or lower average allocation per patient than HC III facilities. Overall, 43 % of all the facilities had optimal stock levels, 27 % were understocked, and 30 % were overstocked. Using simulations, we reduced the ratio between the highest and lowest allocations per patient within a level of care to less than two and eliminated the overlap in allocation per patient between levels.ConclusionsInequity in EMHS allocation is demonstrated by the wide range of funding allocations per patient and the corresponding disparities in medicines availability. We show that using patient load to calculate EMHS allocations has the potential to improve equity significantly. However, more research in this area is urgently needed.Trial registrationThe article does not report any results of human participants. It is implemented in collaboration with the Uganda’s Ministry of Health, Pharmacy Division.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1698-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.