The Lancet Global Health Commission and respecting all workers to deliver the best care possible. Fourth, governments and civil society should ignite demand for quality in the population to empower people to hold systems accountable and actively seek high-quality care. Additional targeted actions in areas such as health financing, management, district-level learning, and others can complement these efforts. What works in one setting might not work elsewhere, and improvement efforts should be adapted for local context and monitored. Funders should align their support with system-wide strategies rather than contribute to the proliferation of micro-level efforts. In this Commission, we assert that providing health services without guaranteeing a minimum level of quality is ineffective, wasteful, and unethical. Moving to a highquality health system-one that improves health and generates confidence and economic benefits-is primarily a political, not technical, decision. National governments need to invest in high-quality health systems for their own people and make such systems accountable to people through legislation, education about rights, regulation, transparency, and greater public participation. Countries will know that they are on the way towards a high-quality, accountable health system when health workers and policymakers choose to receive health care in their own public institutions. Components Quality impacts Better health Level and distribution of patient-reported outcomes: function, symptoms, pain, wellbeing, quality of life, and avoiding serious health-related suffering Confidence in system Satisfaction, recommendation, trust, and care uptake and retention Economic benefit Ability to work or attend school, economic growth, reduction in health system waste, and financial risk protection Processes of care Competent care and systems Evidence-based, effective care: systematic assessment, correct diagnosis, appropriate treatment, counselling, and referral; capable systems: safety, prevention and detection, continuity and integration, timely action, and population health management Positive user experience Respect: dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, confidentiality, and clear communication; user focus: choice of provider, short wait times, patient voice and values, affordability, and ease of use Foundations Population Individuals, families, and communities as citizens, producers of better health outcomes, and system users: health needs, knowledge, health literacy, preferences, and cultural norms Governance Leadership: political commitment, change management; policies: regulations, standards, norms, and policies for the public and private sector, institutions for accountability, supportive behavioural architecture, and public health functions; financing: funding, fund pooling, insurance and purchasing, provider contracting and payment; learning and improvement: institutions for evaluation, measurement, and improvement, learning communities, and trustworthy data; intersectoral: roads, transport, wa...

Large disparities in maternal and neonatal mortality exist between low- and high-income countries. Mothers and babies continue to die at high rates in many countries despite substantial increases in facility birth. One reason for this may be the current design of health systems in most low-income countries where, unlike in high-income countries, a substantial proportion of births occur in primary care facilities that cannot offer definitive care for complications. We argue that the current inequity in care for childbirth is a global double standard that limits progress on maternal and newborn survival. We propose that health systems need to be redesigned to shift all deliveries to hospitals or other advanced care facilities to bring care in line with global best practice. Health system redesign will require investing in high-quality hospitals with excellent midwifery and obstetric care, boosting quality of primary care clinics for antenatal, postnatal, and newborn care, decreasing access and financial barriers, and mobilizing populations to demand high-quality care. Redesign is a structural reform that is contingent on political leadership that envisions a health system designed to deliver high-quality, respectful care to all women giving birth. Getting redesign right will require focused investments, local design and adaptation, and robust evaluation.

Background High satisfaction with healthcare is common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), despite widespread quality deficits. This may be due to low expectations because people lack knowledge about what constitutes good quality or are resigned about the quality of available services. Methods and findings We fielded an internet survey in Argentina, China, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa in 2017 ( N = 17,996). It included vignettes describing poor-quality services—inadequate technical or interpersonal care—for 2 conditions. After applying population weights, most of our respondents lived in urban areas (59%), had finished primary school (55%), and were under the age of 50 (75%). Just over half were men (51%), and the vast majority reported that they were in good health (73%). Over half (53%) of our study population rated the quality of vignettes describing poor-quality services as good or better. We used multilevel logistic regression and found that good ratings were associated with less education (no formal schooling versus university education; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.22, 95% CI 1.90–2.59, P < 0.001), better self-reported health (excellent versus poor health; AOR 5.19, 95% CI 4.33–6.21, P < 0.001), history of discrimination in healthcare (AOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.36–1.57, P < 0.001), and male gender (AOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.23–1.41, P < 0.001). The survey did not reach nonusers of the internet thus only representing the internet-using population. Conclusions Majorities of the internet-using public in 12 LMICs have low expectations of healthcare quality as evidenced by high ratings given to poor-quality care. Low expectations of health services likely dampen demand for quality, reduce pressure on systems to deliver quality care, and inflate satisfaction ratings. Policies and interventions to raise people’s expectations of the quality of healthcare they receive should be considered in health system quality reforms.

No abstract

In this article, we describe the framework of the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems, propose new and undermeasured indicators of TB care quality, and discuss implications of the Commission's key conclusions for measuring and improving the quality of TB care services. The Commission contends that measurement of quality should focus on the processes of care and their impacts. In addition to monitoring treatment coverage and the availability of tools, governments should consider indicators of clinical competence (for e.g. ability of providers to correctly diagnose TB and adhere to treatment guidelines), of timely, continuous and integrated care and of respectful and patient-centered care. Indicators of impact include TB mortality and treatment success rates, but also quality of life and daily functioning among TB patients, public trust in TB services, and bypassing of the formal health system for TB care. Cascades of care, from initial care seeking to recurrence-free survival, should be built in every high-burden country to monitor quality longitudinally. In turn, improvement efforts should target the foundations of health systems and consider the Commission's four universal actions: governing for quality, redesigning service delivery, transforming the health workforce and igniting demand for quality TB services. Important work remains to validate new indicators of TB care quality, develop data collection systems for new measures, and to test new strategies for improving the delivery of competent and respectful TB care.

Introduction Experiences of people of color with maternity care are understudied but understanding them is important to improving quality and reducing racial disparities in birth outcomes in the United States. This qualitative study explored experiences with maternity care among people of color to describe the meaning of quality maternity care to the cohort and, ultimately, to inform the design of a freestanding birth center in Boston. Methods Using a grounded theory design and elements of community‐based participatory research, community activists developing Boston's first freestanding birth center and academics collaborated on this study. Semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposefully sampled people of color were conducted and analyzed using a constant comparative method. Interviewees described their maternity care experiences, ideas about perfect maternity care, and how a freestanding birth center might meet their needs. Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding were used to develop a local theory of what quality care means. Results A total of 23 people of color participated in semistructured interviews and focus groups. A core phenomenon arose from the narratives: being known (ie, being seen or heard, or being treated as individuals) during maternity care was an important element of quality care. Contextual factors, including interpersonal and structural racism, power differentials between perinatal care providers and patients, and the bureaucratic nature of hospital‐based maternity care, facilitated negative experiences. People of color did extra work to prevent and mitigate negative experiences, which left them feeling traumatized, regretful, or sad about maternity care. This extra work came in many forms, including cognitive work such as worrying about racism and behavioral changes such as dressing differently to get health care needs met. Discussion Being known characterizes quality maternity care among people of color in our sample. Maternity care settings can provide personalized care that helps clients feel known without requiring them to do extra work to achieve this experience.

No abstract

Objective To identify contextual factors associated with quality improvements in primary health-care facilities in the United Republic of Tanzania between two star rating assessments, focusing on local district administration and proximity to other facilities. Methods Facilities underwent star rating assessments in 2015 and between 2017 and 2018; quality was rated from zero to five stars. The consolidated framework for implementation research, adapted to a low-income context, was used to identify variables associated with star rating improvements between assessments. Facility data were obtained from several secondary sources. The proportion of the variance in facility improvement observed at facility and district levels and the influence of nearby facilities and district administration were estimated using multilevel regression models and a hierarchical spatial autoregressive model, respectively. Findings Star ratings improved at 4028 of 5595 (72%) primary care facilities. Factors associated with improvement included: (i) star rating in 2015; (ii) facility type (e.g. hospital) and ownership (e.g. public); (iii) participation in, or eligibility for, a results-based financing programme; (iv) local population density; and (v) distance from a major road. Overall, 20% of the variance in facility improvement was associated with district administration. Geographical clustering indicated that improvement at a facility was also associated with improvements at nearby facilities. Conclusion Although the majority of facilities improved their star rating, there were substantial variations between facilities. Both district administration and proximity to high-performing facilities influenced improvements. Quality improvement interventions should take advantage of factors operating above the facility level, such as peer learning and peer pressure.