ObjectiveConduct a global situational analysis to identify the current facilitators and barriers to improving quality of care (QoC) for pregnant women, newborns and children.Study designMetareview of published and unpublished systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted between January 2000 and March 2013 in any language. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.SettingsHealth systems of all countries. Study outcome: QoC measured using surrogate indicators––effective, efficient, accessible, acceptable/patient centred, equitable and safe.AnalysisConducted in two phases (1) qualitative synthesis of extracted data to identify and group the facilitators and barriers to improving QoC, for each of the three population groups, into the six domains of WHO's framework and explore new domains and (2) an analysis grid to map the common facilitators and barriers.ResultsWe included 98 systematic reviews with 110 interventions to improve QoC from countries globally. The facilitators and barriers identified fitted the six domains of WHO's framework––information, patient–population engagement, leadership, regulations and standards, organisational capacity and models of care. Two new domains, ‘communication’ and ‘satisfaction’, were generated. Facilitators included active and regular interpersonal communication between users and providers; respect, confidentiality, comfort and support during care provision; engaging users in decision-making; continuity of care and effective audit and feedback mechanisms. Key barriers identified were language barriers in information and communication; power difference between users and providers; health systems not accounting for user satisfaction; variable standards of implementation of standard guidelines; shortage of resources in health facilities and lack of studies assessing the role of leadership in improving QoC. These were common across the three population groups.ConclusionsThe barriers to good-quality healthcare are common for pregnant women, newborns and children; thus, interventions targeted to address them will have uniform beneficial effects. Adopting the identified facilitators would help countries strengthen their health systems and ensure high-quality care for all.

PurposeThe World Health Organization (WHO) undertook an extensive and elaborate process to develop eight Global Standards to improve quality of health care services for adolescents. The objectives of this article are to present the Global Standards and their method of development.MethodsThe Global Standards were developed through a four-stage process: (1) conducting needs assessment; (2) developing the Global Standards and their criteria; (3) expert consultations; and (4) assessing their usability. Needs assessment involved conducting a meta-review of systematic reviews and two online global surveys in 2013, one with primary health care providers and another with adolescents. The Global Standards were developed based on the needs assessment in conjunction with analysis of 26 national standards from 25 countries. The final document was reviewed by experts from the World Health Organization regional and country offices, governments, academia, nongovernmental organizations, and development partners. The standards were subsequently tested in Benin and in a regional expert consultation of Latin America and Caribbean countries for their usability.ResultsThe process resulted in the development of eight Global Standards and 79 criteria for measuring them: (1) adolescents' health literacy; (2) community support; (3) appropriate package of services; (4) providers' competencies; (5) facility characteristics; (6) equity and nondiscrimination; (7) data and quality improvement; and (8) adolescents' participation.ConclusionsThe eight standards are intended to act as benchmarks against which quality of health care provided to adolescents could be compared. Health care services can use the standards as part of their internal quality assurance mechanisms or as part of an external accreditation process.

Based on limited evidence, standard IMCI training seemed more effective than shortened training, although the difference might be small. As sizable performance gaps often existed after IMCI training, countries should consider implementing other interventions to support health workers after training, regardless of training duration.