Dataset Information

Quality of primary health care in China: challenges and recommendations.

ABSTRACT: China has substantially increased financial investment and introduced favourable policies for strengthening its primary health care system with core responsibilities in preventing and managing chronic diseases such as hypertension and emerging infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, widespread gaps in the quality of primary health care still exist. In this Review, we aim to identify the causes for this poor quality, and provide policy recommendations. System challenges include: the suboptimal education and training of primary health-care practitioners, a fee-for-service payment system that incentivises testing and treatments over prevention, fragmentation of clinical care and public health service, and insufficient continuity of care throughout the entire health-care system. The following recommendations merit consideration: (1) enhancement of the quality of training for primary health-care physicians, (2) establishment of performance accountability to incentivise high-quality and high-value care; (3) integration of clinical care with the basic public health services, and (4) strengthening of the coordination between primary health-care institutions and hospitals. Additionally, China should consider modernising its primary health-care system through the establishment of a learning health system built on digital data and innovative technologies.

SUBMITTER: Li X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7272159 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of primary health care in China: challenges and recommendations.

Li Xi X Krumholz Harlan M HM Yip Winnie W Cheng Kar Keung KK De Maeseneer Jan J Meng Qingyue Q Mossialos Elias E Li Chuang C Lu Jiapeng J Su Meng M Zhang Qiuli Q Xu Dong Roman DR Li Liming L Normand Sharon-Lise T ST Peto Richard R Li Jing J Wang Zengwu Z Yan Hongbing H Gao Runlin R Chunharas Somsak S Gao Xin X Guerra Raniero R Ji Huijie H Ke Yang Y Pan Zhigang Z Wu Xianping X Xiao Shuiyuan S Xie Xinying X Zhang Yujuan Y Zhu Jun J Zhu Shanzhu S Hu Shengshou S

Lancet (London, England) 20200601 10239

China has substantially increased financial investment and introduced favourable policies for strengthening its primary health care system with core responsibilities in preventing and managing chronic diseases such as hypertension and emerging infectious diseases such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, widespread gaps in the quality of primary health care still exist. In this Review, we aim to identify the causes for this poor quality, and provide policy recommendations. System cha ...[more]

PMID: 32505251

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality health services build communities' and patients' trust in health care. It enhances the acceptability of services and increases health service coverage. Quality primary health care is imperative for universal health coverage through expanding health institutions and increasing skilled health professionals to deliver services near to people. Evidence on the quality of health system inputs, interactions between health personnel and clients, and outcomes of health care interventions is necessary. This review summarised indicators, successes, and challenges of the quality of primary health care services.MethodsWe used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extensions for scoping reviews to guide the article selection process. A systematic search of literature from PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted on August 23, 2022, but the preliminary search was begun on July 5, 2022. The Donabedian's quality of care framework, consisting of structure, process and outcomes, was used to operationalise and synthesise the findings on the quality of primary health care.ResultsHuman resources for health, law and policy, infrastructure and facilities, and resources were the common structure indicators. Diagnosis (health assessment and/or laboratory tests) and management (health information, education, and treatment) procedures were the process indicators. Clinical outcomes (cure, mortality, treatment completion), behaviour change, and satisfaction were the common indicators of outcome. Lower cause-specific mortality and a lower rate of hospitalisation in high-income countries were successes, while high mortality due to tuberculosis and the geographical disparity in quality care were challenges in developing countries. There also exist challenges in developed countries (e.g., poor quality mental health care due to a high admission rate). Shortage of health workers was a challenge both in developed and developing countries.ConclusionsQuality of care indicators varied according to the health care problems, which resulted in a disparity in the successes and challenges across countries around the world. Initiatives to improve the quality of primary health care services should ensure the availability of adequate health care providers, equipped health care facilities, appropriate financing mechanisms, enhance compliance with health policy and laws, as well as community and client participation. Additionally, each country should be proactive in monitoring and evaluation of performance indicators in each dimension (structure, process, and outcome) of quality of primary health care services.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To identify a generic set of face valid quality indicators for primary care mental health services which reflect a multi-stakeholder perspective and can be used for facilitating quality improvement. DESIGN:Modified two-round postal Delphi questionnaire. SETTING:Geographical spread across Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS:One hundred and fifteen panellists representing 11 different stakeholder groups within primary care mental health services (clinical psychologist, health and social care commissioner, community psychiatric nurse, counsellor, general practitioner, practice nurse/district nurse/health visitor, psychiatrist, social worker, carer, patient and voluntary organisations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Face validity (median rating of 8 or 9 on a nine point scale with agreement by all panels) for assessing quality of care. RESULTS:A maximum of 334 indicators were rated by panels in the second round; 26% were rated valid by all panels. These indicators were categorised into 21 aspects of care, 11 relating to general practices and 10 relating to health authorities or primary care groups/trusts. There was variation in the total number of indicators rated valid across the different panels. Overall, GPs rated the lowest number of indicators as valid (41%, n=138) and carers rated the highest number valid (91%, n=304). CONCLUSIONS:The quality indicators represent consensus among key stakeholder groups in defining quality of care within primary care mental health services. These indicators could provide a guide for primary care organisations embarking on quality improvement initiatives in mental health care when addressing national targets and standards relating to primary care set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health for England. Although many of the indicators relate to parochial issues in UK service delivery, the methodology used in the development of the indicators could be applied in other settings to produce locally relevant indicators.

Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to assess and explore perceived sustainability and challenges of the intervention among Health Care Providers (HCPs) who were involved.MethodsThe study applied mixed-method embedded design to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative approach was used to evaluate sustainability perception from 20 intervention clinics via self-reported assessment form whereas qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interview (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGDs) 14 health care professionals participated in IDI session and were either care coordinators, liaison officers (LOs)/clinic managers, or medical officers-in-charge for the clinic's intervention. Nine FGDs conducted comprised 58 HCPs from various categories.ResultsHCPs from all the 20 clinics involved responded to each listed Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) intervention components as being implemented but the perceived sustainability of these implementation varies between them. Quantitative feedback showed sustainable interventions included risk stratification, non-communicable disease (NCD) screening form, referral within clinics and hospitals, family health team (FHT), MTAC services and mechanisms and medical adherence status. Qualitative feedback highlighted implementation of each intervention components comes with its challenges, and most of it are related to inadequate resources and facilities in clinic. HCPs made initiatives to adapt based on clinical setting to implement the interventions at best level possible, whereby this seems to be one of the core values for sustainability.ConclusionOverall perceptions among HCPs on sustainability of EnPHC interventions are highly influenced by current experiences with existing resources. Components perceived to have inadequate resources are seen as a challenge to sustain. It's crucial for stakeholders to understand implications affecting implementation process if concerns raised are not addressed and allocation of needed resources to ensure overall successfulness and long term sustainability.

Dataset Information

Quality of primary health care in China: challenges and recommendations.

Publications

Quality of primary health care in China: challenges and recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets