ObjectiveTo evaluate quality of routine and emergency intrapartum and postnatal care using a health facility assessment, and to estimate “effective coverage” of skilled attendance in Brong Ahafo, Ghana. MethodsWe conducted an assessment of all 86 health facilities in seven districts in Brong Ahafo. Using performance of key signal functions and the availability of relevant drugs, equipment and trained health professionals, we created composite quality categories in four dimensions: routine delivery care, emergency obstetric care (EmOC), emergency newborn care (EmNC) and non-medical quality. Linking the health facility assessment to surveillance data we estimated “effective coverage” of skilled attendance as the proportion of births in facilities of high quality.FindingsDelivery care was offered in 64/86 facilities; only 3-13% fulfilled our requirements for the highest quality category in any dimension. Quality was lowest in the emergency care dimensions, with 63% and 58% of facilities categorized as “low” or “substandard” for EmOC and EmNC, respectively. This implies performing less than four EmOC or three EmNC signal functions, and/or employing less than two skilled health professionals, and/or that no health professionals were present during our visit. Routine delivery care was “low” or “substandard” in 39% of facilities, meaning 25/64 facilities performed less than six routine signal functions and/or had less than two skilled health professionals and/or less than one midwife. While 68% of births were in health facilities, only 18% were in facilities with “high” or “highest” quality in all dimensions.ConclusionOur comprehensive facility assessment showed that quality of routine and emergency intrapartum and postnatal care was generally low in the study region. While coverage with facility delivery was 68%, we estimated “effective coverage” of skilled attendance at 18%, thus revealing a large “quality gap.” Effective coverage could be a meaningful indicator of progress towards reducing maternal and newborn mortality.

No abstract

Summary Background Maternal and perinatal mortality are still unacceptably high in many countries despite steep increases in facility birth. The evidence that childbirth in facilities reduces mortality is weak, mainly because of the scarcity of robust study designs and data. We aimed to assess this link by quantifying the influence of major determinants of facility birth (cluster-level facility birth, wealth, education, and distance to childbirth care) on several mortality outcomes, while also considering quality of care. Methods Our study is a secondary analysis of surveillance data on 119 244 pregnancies from two large population-based cluster-randomised controlled trials in Brong Ahafo, Ghana. In addition, we specifically collected data to assess quality of care at all 64 childbirth facilities in the study area. Outcomes were direct maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, first-day and early neonatal mortality, and antepartum and intrapartum stillbirth. We calculated cluster-level facility birth as the percentage of facility births in a woman's village over the preceding 2 years, and we computed distances from women's regular residence to health facilities in a geospatial database. Associations between determinants of facility birth and mortality outcomes were assessed in crude and multivariable multilevel logistic regression models. We stratified perinatal mortality effects by three policy periods, using April 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, as cutoff points, when delivery-fee exemption and free health insurance were introduced in Ghana. These policies increased facility birth and potentially reduced quality of care. Findings Higher proportions of facility births in a cluster were not linked to reductions in any of the mortality outcomes. In women who were wealthier, facility births were much more common than in those who were poorer, but mortality was not lower among them or their babies. Women with higher education had lower mortality risks than less-educated women, except first-day and early neonatal mortality. A substantially higher proportion of women living in areas closer to childbirth facilities had facility births and caesarean sections than women living further from childbirth facilities, but mortality risks were not lower despite this increased service use. Among women who lived in areas closer to facilities offering comprehensive emergency obstetric care (CEmOC), emergency newborn care, or high-quality routine care, or to facilities that had providers with satisfactory competence, we found a lower risk of intrapartum stillbirth (14·2 per 1000 deliveries at >20 km from a CEmOC facility vs 10·4 per 1000 deliveries at ≤1 km; odds ratio [OR] 1·13, 95% CI 1·06–1·21) and of composite mortality outcomes than among women living in areas where these services were further away. Protective effects of facility birth were restricted to the two earlier policy periods (from June 1, 2003, to June 30, 2008), whereas there was evide...

BackgroundAccess to skilled attendance at childbirth is crucial to reduce maternal and newborn mortality. Several different measures of geographic access are used concurrently in public health research, with the assumption that sophisticated methods are generally better. Most of the evidence for this assumption comes from methodological comparisons in high-income countries. We compare different measures of travel impedance in a case study in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo region to determine if straight-line distance can be an adequate proxy for access to delivery care in certain low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings.MethodsWe created a geospatial database, mapping population location in both compounds and village centroids, service locations for all health facilities offering delivery care, land-cover and a detailed road network. Six different measures were used to calculate travel impedance to health facilities (straight-line distance, network distance, network travel time and raster travel time, the latter two both mechanized and non-mechanized). The measures were compared using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, absolute differences, and the percentage of the same facilities identified as closest. We used logistic regression with robust standard errors to model the association of the different measures with health facility use for delivery in 9,306 births.ResultsNon-mechanized measures were highly correlated with each other, and identified the same facilities as closest for approximately 80% of villages. Measures calculated from compounds identified the same closest facility as measures from village centroids for over 85% of births. For 90% of births, the aggregation error from using village centroids instead of compound locations was less than 35 minutes and less than 1.12 km. All non-mechanized measures showed an inverse association with facility use of similar magnitude, an approximately 67% reduction in odds of facility delivery per standard deviation increase in each measure (OR = 0.33).ConclusionDifferent data models and population locations produced comparable results in our case study, thus demonstrating that straight-line distance can be reasonably used as a proxy for potential spatial access in certain LMIC settings. The cost of obtaining individually geocoded population location and sophisticated measures of travel impedance should be weighed against the gain in accuracy.