What factors do make quality improvement work in primary health care? Experiences of maternal health quality improvement teams in three Puskesmas in Indonesia

Abstract

BackgroundIndonesia has been shifting from ensuring access to health services towards improving service quality. Accreditation has been used as quality assurance (QA) mechanism, first in hospitals and subsequently in primary health care facilities, including Puskesmas (community health centres). QA provides measures of whether services meet quality targets, but quality improvement (QI) is needed to make change and achieve improvements. QI is a cyclical process with cycles of problem identification, solution testing and observation. We investigated the factors which influenced the process of QI based on experience of maternal health QI teams in three Puskesmas in Cianjur district, West Java province, Indonesia.MethodsQualitative data were collected using 28 in-depth interviews at two points of time: pre- (April 2016) and post- QI intervention (April 2017), involving national, provincial, district and Puskesmas managers; and Puskesmas QI team members. Thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted.ResultsWe found four main factors contributed to the process of QI: 1) leadership, including awareness and attitude of leader(s) towards QI, involvement of leader(s) in the QI process and decision-making in budget allocation for QI; 2) staff enthusiasm and multidisciplinary collaboration; 3) a culture where QI is integrated in existing responsibilities; and 4) the ongoing Puskesmas accreditation process, which increased the value of QI to the organisation.ConclusionMaking QI a success in the decentralised Indonesian system requires action at four levels. At individual level, leadership attributes can create an internal quality environment and drive organisational cultural change. At team level, staff enthusiasm and collaboration can be triggered through engaging and tasking everyone in the QI process and having a shared vision of what quality should look like. At organisational level, QI should be integrated in planned activities, ensuring financial and human resources. Lastly, QI can be encouraged when it is implemented by the wider health system as part of national accreditation programmes.

Study on the Spatial Differentiation of Public Health Service Capabilities of European Union under the Background of the COVID-19 Crisis

“…From the above results, it can be seen that the Tobit model’s fixed effect regression results of population density, degree of opening up, education level, economic development level, urbanization level, technological innovation level and degree of aging are significant. They are driving factors for the public health service capacity of countries in the EU [ 31 ]. However, per capita GDP and the Gini coefficient did not pass the significance test, indicating that there is no direct correlation between per capita GDP and Gini coefficient and public health service capacity.…”

“…The medical and health resources of economically developed countries are mostly provided to people with a certain economic foundation. Low-income people cannot universally and comprehensively enjoy public health services [ 31 ]. This shows that the gap between the rich and the poor is not related to the capacity of public health services.…”

Policy context, coherence and disjuncture in the implementation of the Ideal Clinic Realisation and Maintenance programme in the Gauteng and Mpumalanga provinces of South Africa

“…A study in Ghana also found that managers' capacity to lead is directly influenced by the contextual factors [63]. In Indonesia, a study on factors influencing the success of a PHC quality improvement programme found that strong local leadership and their involvement in resource decision-making were success factors [64].…”

Community participation in the collaborative governance of primary health care facilities, Uasin Gishu County, Kenya

“…The policy documents which support the health care framework envision attaining improved health care through stakeholder collaboration [46,51,52]. Stakeholder participation in decision-making and the implementation of health care services was emphasized by respondents as important in collaborative governance at multiple levels of the health system [33,[47][48][49][50][51][52]. While stakeholders played a positive role in primary health care provision, there were no clear mechanisms for controlling or regulating their entry, operations and exit [50].…”