Background The use of data for planning and improving healthcare delivery is sub-optimal among developing countries. In 2015, Tanzania started to implement Star Rating Assessment (SRA) process for primary health care (PHC) facilities to improve various dimensions of quality of services, including the use of data. We aimed at assessing the extent and predictors of data use in Tanzanian PHC facilities. Methodology We used the most current national SRA data available in DHIS2 that was collected in 2017/2018 from all 7,289 PHC facilities. A facility was considered using data if gained 80% of the allocated scores. Other dependent variables were the three components that together contribute to the use of data [If PHC facility has Health Management Information systems (HMIS) functional, disseminate information, and has proper medical records]. We determined the association between data use and facility ownership status (public or private), location of the facility (rural or urban) and facility service level (dispensary, health centre or hospital). Results are presented as proportions of facilities that qualified for data use and the three components. The associations are reported in Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 6,663(91.4%) PHC facilities met our inclusion criteria for analysis. Among the facilities: 1,198(18.0%) had used data for planning and services improvement; 3,792(56.9%) had functional HMIS; 1,752(26.3%) had disseminated data; and 631(9.5%) had proper medical records. PHC facilities that are publicly owned (AOR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.05–1.48) and those at higher service level [hospitals (AOR 1.77; 95% CI: 1.27–2.46) and health centres (AOR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.15–1.68) compared to dispensaries] were more likely to use data. Conclusion The use of facility data for planning and services improvement in Tanzanian PHC facilities is low, and much effort needs to be targeted at privately-owned and low-level PHC facilities.
Introduction: The need to address the problem of patient safety has been a focus of World Health Assembly (WHA) meetings of 2002, 2019 and 2021. The 2019 WHA Resolution urged the Member States to take action on patient safety. We aimed to review patient safety efforts in Tanzania from 2002 to 2022 to inform improvement efforts towards the 2030 target. Methods: A rapid literature review was conducted between January 2002 and April 2022.We searched Google, PubMed and PubMed Central in April and May 2022 using the following search terms: PubMed-"patient safety Tanzania", "blood safety in Tanzania", "safe surgery Tanzania", and "healthcare-associated infections Tanzania"; Google-"blood safety in Tanzania", injection safety in Tanzania", "infection prevention and control", "radiation safety in health facilities in Tanzania"; and PubMed Central-"injection safety in Tanzania. Results: The search identified 4160 articles, of which 4053 were removed in initial screening; 21 were duplicates, giving 86 relevant articles for full screening. Of the 86 articles, 04 were removed after the full screening, hence remaining with 82 articles. Among the 82 eligible articles, 27 are on IPC, 26 on safe surgery, 12 on blood safety, 07 on radiation safety, 06 on injection safety, and 02 on medication safety. One article was relevant to-blood safety, IPC and injection safety; and one article was relevant to-IPC and injection
Background Performance-based financing (PBF) is an important mechanism for improving the quality of health services in low- and middle- income countries. In 2014, Tanzania launched a country-wide quality approach known as Star Rating Assessment (SRA) aims to assess the quality of healthcare service delivery in all Primary Health Care (PHC) Facilities in the country. Furthermore, by 2015, the country rolled out RBF initiatives into eight regions in which PHC facilities were paid incentives based on their level of achievement in SRA assessments. This study aims to compare performance in quality between PHC facilities under RBF regions and non-RBF regions using the findings from the two-phases SRA assessments; baseline (2015/16) and follow-up (2017/18). Methods Analysis of performance of SRA indicators in the SRA service areas were identified based on the star rating tool that was used. The star rating tool had 12 service areas. For the sake of this implementation study, only seven service areas were included. The purposive sampling of the areas was used to select the areas that had direct influence of RBF in health facilities improvement. We used a t-test to determine whether there were differences in assessment star rating scores between the regions that implemented RBF and those which did not at each assessment (both baseline and reassessment). All results were considered significant at p < 0.05. The 95% Confidence Interval was also reported. Results The mean value was found to be 61.26 among facilities exposed to RBF compared to 51.28 among those not exposed to RBF. The study showed the mean difference score to be 10.79, with a confidence interval at 95% to be -1.24 to 22.84, suggesting that there was (no) a significant difference in the facilities based on RBF exposure during baseline assessment. The p-value of 0.07 was not statistically significant. Overall, there was an increment in facilities scoring the recommended 3+stars and above by 17.39% between the assessments, the difference was significant (p=0.0001). When the regions were stratified based on RBF intervention; facilities under RBF improved in 3+ stars by 10.63% higher compared to those that were not under RBF; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.06) Conclusion Improvement of Health services needs to adhere to all six WHO building blocks and note to a sole financing. The six WHO building blocks are (i) service delivery, (ii) health workforce, (iii) health information systems, (iv) access to essential medicines, (v) financing, and (vi) leadership/governance. Probably, RBF found not to influence star rating because other blocks were not considered in this intervention. We need to integrate all the six WHO building blocks whenever we want to improve health services provision.
Introduction: Standard Precautions are a set of measures applied in the care of all individuals/patients regardless of their infectious status aiming at preventing healthcare workers and patients from infections, preventing environmental contamination and spread of infections to the community. Many health facilities have not implemented them to an acceptable level. The purpose of the study is to report progress of improvement in health facilities readiness to implement standard precautions for infection prevention and control based on SARA reports. Methods: We generated mean scores of all standard precautions each year and calculated their standard deviations, variances and confidence intervals. One-way ANOVA was used to determine if the mean scores were equal. Finally, the trend of improvement in health facilities readiness to implement the standard precautions was generated. Results: A total of nine standard precautions were reported in SARA reports for 2012, 2017 and 2020. The mean scores of the standard precautions were 52.22% in 2012, 64.55% in 2017 and 69.66% in 2020. The overall trend showed an increase in health facilities readiness to implement standard precautions, although the mean scores were not statistically different (p-value 0.3217).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.