SummaryBackgroundPrimary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda).FindingsData were available for 7049 facilities and 63 869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains.InterpretationFacility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

IntroductionPerson-centredness, including patient experience and satisfaction, is a foundational element of quality of care. Evidence indicates that poor experience and satisfaction are drivers of underutilisation of healthcare services, which in turn is a major driver of avoidable mortality. However, there is limited information about patient experience of care at the population level, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsA multistage cluster sample design was used to obtain a nationally representative sample of women of reproductive age in Ghana. Women were interviewed in their homes regarding their demographic characteristics, recent care-seeking characteristics, satisfaction with care, patient-reported outcomes, and—using questions from the World Health Survey Responsiveness Module—the seven domains of responsiveness of outpatient care to assess patient experience. Using Poisson regression with log link, we assessed the relationship between responsiveness and satisfaction, as well as patient-reported outcomes.ResultsWomen who reported more responsive care were more likely to be more educated, have good access to care and have received care at a private facility. Controlling for respondent and visit characteristics, women who reported the highest responsiveness levels were significantly more likely to report that care was excellent at meeting their needs (prevalence ratio (PR)=13.0), excellent quality of care (PR=20.8), being very likely to recommend the facility to others (PR=1.4), excellent self-rated health (PR=4.0) and excellent self-rated mental health (PR=5.1) as women who reported the lowest responsiveness levels.DiscussionThese findings support the emerging global consensus that responsiveness and patient experience of care are not luxuries but essential components of high-performing health systems, and highlight the need for more nuanced and systematic measurement of these areas to inform priority setting and improvement efforts.

IMPORTANCE Recent reports have highlighted that expanding access to health care is ineffective at meeting the goal of universal health coverage if the care offered does not meet a minimum level of quality. Health care facilities nearest to patient's homes that are perceived to offer inadequate or inappropriate care are frequently bypassed in favor of more distant private or tertiary-level hospital facilities that are perceived to offer higher-quality care. OBJECTIVE To estimate the frequency with which women in Ghana bypass the nearest primary health care facility and describe patient experiences, costs, and other factors associated with this choice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This nationally representative survey study was conducted in 2017 and included 4203 households to identify women in Ghana aged 15 to 49 years (ie, reproductive age) who sought primary care within the last 6 months. Women who sought care within the past 6 months were included in the study. Data were analyzed from 2018 to 2019. EXPOSURES Bypass was defined as a woman's report that she sought care at a health facility other than the nearest facility. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Sociodemographic characteristics, reasons why women sought care, reasons why women bypassed their nearest facility, ratings for responsiveness of care, patient experience, and out-of-pocket costs. All numbers and percentages were survey-weighted to account for survey design. RESULTS A total of 4289 women met initial eligibility criteria, and 4207 women (98.1%) completed the interview. A total of 1993 women reported having sough health care in the past 6 months, and after excluding those who were ineligible and survey weighting, the total sample included 1946 women. Among these, 629 women (32.3%) reported bypassing their nearest facilities for primary care. Women who bypassed their nearest facilities, compared with women who did not, were more likely to visit a private facility (152 women [24.5%] vs 202 women [15.6%]) and borrow money to pay for their care (151 women [24.0%] vs 234 women [17.8%]). After adjusting for covariates, women who bypassed reported paying a mean of 107.2 (95% CI, 79.1-135.4

IntroductionEven with accessible and effective diagnostic tests and treatment, malaria remains a leading cause of death among children under five. Malaria case management requires prompt diagnosis and correct treatment but the degree to which this happens in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains largely unknown.MethodsCross-sectional study of 132 566 children under five, of which 25% reported fever in the last 2 weeks from 2006 to 2017 using the latest Malaria Indicators Survey data across 25 malaria-endemic countries. We calculated the per cent of patient encounters of febrile children under five that received poor quality of care (no blood testing, less or more than two antimalarial drugs and delayed treatment provision) across each treatment cascade and region.ResultsAcross the study countries, 48 316 (58%) of patient encounters of febrile children under five received poor quality of care for suspected malaria. When comparing by treatment cascade, 62% of cases were not blood tested despite reporting fever in the last 2 weeks, 82% did not receive any antimalarial drug, 17% received one drug and 72% received treatment more than 24 hours after onset of fever. Of the four countries where we had more detailed malaria testing data, we found that 35% of patients were incorrectly managed (26% were undertreated, while 9% were overtreated). Poor malaria care quality varies widely within and between countries.ConclusionQuality of malaria care remains poor and varies widely in endemic LMICs. Treatments are often prescribed regardless of malaria test results, suggesting that presumptive diagnosis is still commonly practiced among cases of suspected malaria, rather than the WHO recommendation of ‘test and treat’. To reach the 2030 global malaria goal of reducing mortality rates by at least 90%, focussing on improving the quality of malaria care is needed.

No abstract

BackgroundThe management quality of healthcare facilities has consistently been linked to facility performance, but available tools to measure management are costly to implement, often hospital-specific, not designed for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), nor widely deployed. We addressed this gap by developing the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation Tool (PRIME-Tool), a primary health care facility management survey for integration into routine national surveys in LMICs. We present an analysis of the tool’s psychometric properties and suggest directions for future improvements.MethodsThe PRIME-Tool assesses performance in five core management domains: Target setting, Operations, Human resources, Monitoring, and Community engagement. We evaluated two versions of the PRIME-Tool. We surveyed 142 primary health care (PHC) facilities in Ghana in 2016 using the first version (27 items) and 148 facilities in 2017 using the second version (34 items). We calculated floor and ceiling effects for each item and conducted exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure for each year and version of the tool. We developed a revised management framework and PRIME-tool as informed by these exploratory results, further review of management theory literature, and co-author consensus.ResultsThe majority (17 items in 2016, 23 items in 2017) of PRIME-Tool items exhibited ceiling effects, but only three (2 items in 2016, 3 items in 2017) showed floor effects. Solutions suggested by factor analyses did not fully fit our initial hypothesized management domains. We found five groupings of items that consistently loaded together across each analysis and named these revised domains as Supportive supervision and target setting, Active monitoring and review, Community engagement, Client feedback for improvement, and Operations and financing.ConclusionThe revised version of the PRIME-Tool captures a range of important and actionable information on the management of PHC facilities in LMIC contexts. We recommend its use by other investigators and practitioners to further validate its utility in PHC settings. We will continue to refine the PRIME-Tool to arrive at a parsimonious tool for tracking PHC facility management quality. Better understanding the functional components of PHC facility management can help policymakers and frontline managers drive evidence-based improvements in performance.

No abstract

No abstract