Compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) protocols is critical in minimizing the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection among healthcare workers. However, data on IPC compliance among healthcare workers in COVID-19 treatment centers are unknown in Ghana. This study aims to assess IPC compliance among healthcare workers in Ghana’s COVID-19 treatment centers. The study was a secondary analysis of data, which was initially collected to determine the level of risk of COVID-19 virus infection among healthcare workers in Ghana. Quantitative data were conveniently collected using the WHO COVID-19 risk assessment tool. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. We observed that IPC compliance during healthcare interactions was 88.4% for hand hygiene and 90.6% for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) usage; IPC compliance while performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), was 97.5% for hand hygiene and 97.5% for PPE usage. For hand hygiene during healthcare interactions, lower compliance was seen among nonclinical staff [OR (odds ratio): 0.43; 95% CI (Confidence interval): 0.21–0.89], and healthcare workers with secondary level qualification (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08–0.71). Midwives (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09–0.93) and Pharmacists (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02–0.92) compliance with hand hygiene was significantly lower than registered nurses. For PPE usage during healthcare interactions, lower compliance was seen among healthcare workers who were separated/divorced/widowed (OR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.43), those with secondary level qualifications (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01–0.43), non-clinical staff (OR 0.16 95% CI 0.07–0.35), cleaners (OR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.05–0.52), pharmacists (OR: 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01–0.49) and among healthcare workers who reported of insufficiency of PPEs (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.14–0.77). Generally, healthcare workers’ infection prevention and control compliance were high, but this compliance differs across the different groups of health professionals in the treatment centers. Ensuring an adequate supply of IPC logistics coupled with behavior change interventions and paying particular attention to nonclinical staff is critical in minimizing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the treatment centers.

Understanding how countries review their national standard treatment guidelines (STGs) and essential medicines list (EML) is important in the light of ever-changing trends in public health and evidence supporting the selection and use of medicines in disease management. This study examines the 2017 STGs and EML review process, the actors involved and how the list of medicines and disease conditions evolved between the last two editions. We examined expert committee reports, stakeholder engagement reports and the last two editions (2010, 2017) STGs and EML. The review process occurred in both bureaucratic and public arenas where various actors with varied power and interest engaged in ways to consolidate their influence with the use of evidence from research and practice. In the bureaucratic arena, a national medicines selection committee inaugurated by the Minister of Health assessed the 2010 edition through technical sessions considering the country’s disease burden, hierarchical healthcare structure and evidence on safety and efficacy and expert opinion. To build consensus and ensure credibility service providers, professional bodies and healthcare managers scrutinized the assessed guidelines and medicines list in public arenas. In such public arenas, technical discussions moved towards negotiations with emphasis on practicability of the policies. Updates in the 2017 guidelines involved the addition of 64 new disease conditions in the STG, with the EML including 153 additional medicines and excluding 56 medicines previously found in the 2010 EML. Furthermore, the level of care categorization for Level ‘A’ [i.e. community-based health planning and services (CHPS)] and Level ‘M’ (i.e. midwifery and CHPS with a midwife) evolved to reflect the current primary healthcare and community mobilization activities for healthcare delivery in Ghana. Ghana’s experience in using evidence from research and practice and engaging wide stakeholders can serve as lessons for other low and middle-income countries.

Objectives: Universal healthcare coverage in low-and middle-income countries requires challenging resource allocation decisions. Health technology assessment is one important tool to support such decision making. The International Decision Support Initiative worked with the Ghanaian Ministry of Health to strengthen health technology assessment capacity building, identifying hypertension as a priority topic area for a relevant case study.Methods: Based on guidance from a national technical working group of researchers and policy makers, an economic evaluation and budget impact analysis were undertaken for the main antihypertensive medicines used for uncomplicated, essential hypertension. The analysis aimed to address specific policy questions relevant to the National Health Insurance Scheme.Results: The evaluation found that first-line management of essential hypertension with diuretics has an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life-year avoided of GH¢ 276 ($179 in 2017, 4% of gross national income per capita) compared with no treatment. Calcium channel blockers were more effective than diuretics but at a higher incremental cost: GH¢ 11 061 per disability-adjusted life-year avoided ($7189 in 2017; 160% of gross national income per capita). Diuretics provide better health outcomes at a lower cost than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or beta-blockers. Budget impact analysis highlighted the potential for cost saving through enhanced price negotiation and increased use of better-value drugs. We also illustrate how savings could be reinvested to improve population health.Conclusions: Economic evaluation enabled decision makers to assess hypertension medicines in a Ghanaian context and estimate the impact of using such evidence to change policy. This study contributes to addressing challenges associated with the drive for universal healthcare coverage in the context of constrained budgets.

No abstract

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has gained national and international attention. The design and launch of national policy on antimicrobial use and resistance and action plan marked a milestone in Ghana’s commitment to control AMR. These strategies are some outcomes of getting and sustaining AMR issues prominence on government’s agenda. Understanding the agenda setting processes, policy actors involved and policy change is important as this provides insights on how and why policy actors defined and framed AMR issues to sustain its prominence despite the changing priorities of government agenda. Objective To examine the processes of setting and sustaining AMR issues on government agenda, the policy actors involved and resulting outcomes. Methods A qualitative study was conducted and data collected through interviewing twenty-four respondents and reviewing technical working group meeting reports and health sector documents. Data was analysed drawing on Kingdon’s agenda setting framework. Result Members of a multisectoral technical working group (AMR platform) formed in 2011 constantly built consensus on AMR problem definition, solutions and actively engaged decision makers to mobilise support and interest. The AMR platform members sustained AMR attention and prominence on government’s agenda through the following multisectoral coordination mechanisms: (1) institutionalising AMR platform activities (2) gathering evidence, sharing findings, and supporting research (3) creating awareness and training (4) gaining and maintaining political support. The activities of the AMR platform contributed to three remarkable outcomes and these are (1) maintained network of AMR Champions, (2) design of a national policy on antimicrobial use and resistance in Ghana (1st edition) and national action plan (2017–2021), and (3) Ghana’s hosting of the second Global call to action on AMR. Conclusion The AMR platform members as influencers concentrated their efforts to move and sustain AMR issues on government agenda. The identified multisectoral coordination mechanisms collectively contributed to agenda setting processes and policy change. The AMR platform engagements are ongoing and it is important the momentum is maintained. As multisectoral coordination and activities are vital especially for AMR ‘One Health’ approach, we hope this paper presents lessons for better understanding of how and why multisectoral groups influence national level agenda setting processes.