Dataset Information

Field-testing of primary health-care indicators, India.

ABSTRACT: Objective:To develop a primary health-care monitoring framework and health outcome indicator list, and field-test and triangulate indicators designed to assess health reforms in Kerala, India, 2018-2019. Methods:We used a modified Delphi technique to develop a 23-item indicator list to monitor primary health care. We used a multistage cluster random sampling technique to select one district from each of four district clusters, and then select both a family and a primary health centre from each of the four districts. We field-tested and triangulated the indicators using facility data and a population-based household survey. Findings:Our data revealed similarities between facility and survey data for some indicators (e.g. low birth weight and pre-check services), but differences for others (e.g. acute diarrhoeal diseases in children younger than 5 years and blood pressure screening). We made four critical observations: (i) data are available at the facility level but in varying formats; (ii) established global indicators may not always be useful in local monitoring; (iii) operational definitions must be refined; and (iv) triangulation and feedback from the field is vital. Conclusion:We observe that, while data can be used to develop indices of progress, interpretation of these indicators requires great care. In the attainment of universal health coverage, we consider that our observations of the utility of certain health indicators will provide valuable insights for practitioners and supervisors in the development of a primary health-care monitoring mechanism.

SUBMITTER: Nambiar D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7607472 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Field-testing of primary health-care indicators, India.

Nambiar Devaki D Sankar Hari H Negi Jyotsna J Nair Arun A Sadanandan Rajeev R

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 20200827 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To develop a primary health-care monitoring framework and health outcome indicator list, and field-test and triangulate indicators designed to assess health reforms in Kerala, India, 2018-2019.<h4>Methods</h4>We used a modified Delphi technique to develop a 23-item indicator list to monitor primary health care. We used a multistage cluster random sampling technique to select one district from each of four district clusters, and then select both a family and a primary health cen ...[more]

PMID: 33177771

Similar Datasets

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:BACKGROUND: The performance of Primary Care Trusts in England is assessed and published using a number of different performance indicators. Our study has two broad purposes. Firstly, to find out whether pairs of indicators that purport to measure similar aspects of quality are correlated (as would be expected if they are both valid measures of the same construct). Secondly, we wanted to find out whether broad (global) indicators correlated with any particular features of Primary Care Trusts, such as expenditure per capita. METHODS: Cross sectional quantitative analysis using data from six 2004/05 PCT performance indicators for 303 English Primary Care Trusts from four sources in the public domain: Star Rating, aggregated Quality and Outcomes Framework scores, Dr Foster mortality index, Dr Foster equity index (heart by-pass and hip replacements), NHS Litigation Authority Risk Management standards and Patient Satisfaction scores from the Star Ratings. Forward stepwise multiple regression analysis to determine the effect of Primary Care Trust characteristics on performance. RESULTS: Star Rating and Quality and Outcomes Framework total, both summary measures of global quality, were not correlated with each other (F = 0.66, p = 0.57). There were however positive correlations between Quality and Outcomes Framework total and patient satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and between screening/'additional services' indicators on the Star Ratings and Quality and Outcomes Framework (F = 24, p < 0.001). There was no correlation between different measures of access to services. Likewise we found no relationship between either Star Rating or Litigation Authority Standards and hospital mortality (F = 0.61, p = 0.61; F = 0.31, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Performance assessment in healthcare remains on the Government's agenda, with new core and developmental standards set to replace the Star Ratings in 2006. Yet the results of this analysis provide little evidence that the current indicators have sufficient construct validity to measure the underlying concept of quality, except when the specific area of screening is considered.

Project description:BackgroundIntegrated dental services within the Health System, particularly at primary health care, are crucial to reverse the current impact of oral diseases, which are among the most prevalent diseases worldwide. However, the use of dental services is determined by complex phenomena related to the individual, the environment and practices in which care is offered. Therefore, factors associated with dental appointments scheduling can affect positively or negatively the use of dental services. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the indicators for dental appointment scheduling in Primary Health Care (PHC).MethodsThe present is a cross-sectional analytical study that used data from the external assessment of the third cycle of the National Program for Improving Access and Quality in Primary Care (PMAQ-AB), carried out between 2017 and 2018, in Brazil. The final sample consisted of 85,231 patients and 22,475 Oral Health teams (OHTs). The outcome variable was the fact that the user sought for a dental appointment at the Primary Health Care Unit. A multilevel analysis was carried out to verify the association between individual variables (related to users) and contextual variables (related to the OHTs) in relation to the outcome.ResultsOnly 58.1% of the users interviewed at these Primary Health Care Units seek the available dental care. The variables with the greatest effect on the outcome were the patient's age up to 42 years old (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.96-2.10), at individual level, and 'oral health teams that assisted no more than a single family health team (FHT)' (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.23-1.36) at contextual level. Other variables were also associated with the outcome, but with a smaller effect size.ConclusionIn conclusion, users' age and work process of OHT were indicators for dental appointment scheduling. Our results suggest that when OHT put the National Oral Health Policy guidelines into practice, by assisting only one FHT, the chance for PHC users seeking dental appointments is higher than OHTs that assist more than one FHT. Regarding age, patients aged up to 42 years are more likely to seek an appointment with a dentist.

Project description:Chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, have reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Health systems, especially those in low- and middle-income countries, such as India, struggle to deliver quality chronic care. A reorganization of healthcare service delivery is needed to strengthen care for chronic conditions. In this study, we evaluated the implementation of a package of tailored interventions to reorganize care, which were identified following a detailed analysis of gaps in delivering quality NCD care at the primary care level in India. Interventions included a redesign of the workflow at primary care clinics, a redistribution of tasks, the introduction of patient information records and the involvement of community health workers in the follow-up of patients with NCDs. An experimental case study design was chosen to study the implementation of the quality improvement measures. Three public primary care facilities in rural South India were selected. Qualitative methods were used to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation process and outcomes of implementation. Observations, field notes and semi-structured interviews with staff at these facilities (n = 15) were thematically analysed to identify contextual factors that influenced implementation. Only one of the primary health centres implemented all components of the intervention by the end of 9 months. The main barriers to implementation were hierarchical arrangements that inhibited team-based care, the amount of time required for counselling and staff transfers. Team cohesion, additional staff and staff motivation seem to have facilitated implementation. This quality improvement research highlights the importance of building relational leadership to enable team-based care at primary care clinics in India. Redesigned organization of care and task redistribution is important solutions to deliver quality chronic care. However, implementing these will require capacity building of local primary care teams.

Dataset Information

Field-testing of primary health-care indicators, India.

Publications

Field-testing of primary health-care indicators, India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets