Dataset Information

Healthcare governance during humanitarian responses: a survey of current practice among international humanitarian actors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Large international humanitarian actors support and directly deliver health services for millions of people in crises annually, and wield considerable power to decide which health services to provide, how and to whom, across a vast spectrum of health areas. Despite decades of reform aiming to improve accountability in the sector, public health practice among humanitarian actors is not heavily scrutinized in either the countries where they are headquartered or those where they provide healthcare. We surveyed current healthcare governance practice among large international humanitarian actors to better understand what organisations are doing to ensure oversight and accountability for health services in humanitarian responses.

Methods

The term 'healthcare governance' was defined and categorised into seven domains: implementation of health management information systems (HMIS) and use of resulting data; professional development of health sector staff; audits of health service performance; management of clinical incidents; evidence-based practice; pharmaceutical supply; and beneficiary engagement. Senior health professionals at 32 leading international actors providing humanitarian health services were contacted between July and August 2019 to complete a 109-question online survey about their organisation's practice in these domains.

Results

Respondents from 13 organisations completed the questionnaire. Healthcare governance practices were undertaken to varying degrees by all organisations but were often driven by donor requirements and external factors rather than improvement of programme performance. Common strengths were the inclusion of governance in organisational policies, high availability of technical guidelines, and close monitoring of pharmaceutical services. Recurring weaknesses were poor beneficiary engagement, inconsistent use of health information for decision making, unsystematic implementation of healthcare audits, inconsistent management of clinical incidents, and lack of training and professional development opportunities.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe healthcare governance practice among humanitarian actors. Leading international humanitarian healthcare providers are already implementing many healthcare governance activities; however, these are inconsistently applied and generally not reflective of systematic policies or earmarked organisational resources. There is a need for sector-wide consensus on how the humanitarian sector defines healthcare governance, the domains that constitute it, which actors in the humanitarian system are implicated, and how malpractice should be systematically addressed.

SUBMITTER: Jarrett P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8035763 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeThe uptake of new technologies has varied internationally and there have often been barriers to implementation. On-line adaptive radiotherapy (ART) promises to improve patient outcome. This survey focuses on the implementation phase of delivering ART and professional roles and responsibilities currently involved in the workflow and changes which may be expected in the future.Materials and methodsA 38 question survey included aspects on current practice; professional responsibilities; benefits and barriers; and decision making and responsibilities. For the purposes of the questionnaire and paper, ART was considered where tumour and /or organs at risk were contoured and re-planning was performed on-line. The questionnaire was electronically distributed via radiotherapy networks.ResultsNineteen international responses were received. Europe (n?=?11), United States of America (n?=?4); Canada (n?=?2), Australia (n?=?1) and Hong Kong (n?=?1). The majority of centres started using ART in either 2018 (n?=?7) or 2019 (n?=?6). Four centres started treating with ART between 2015 and 2017, and the first was in 2014. Centres initially treated prostate and oligometastases patients, expanding to treat prostate, oligometastases, pancreas and rectum. The majority of centres were working in conventional roles, however moving towards radiographers taking more responsibility in contouring organs at risk (OAR), target and dosimetry. The three most important criteria chosen by medical doctors to determine if ART should be used were overall gross anatomy changes of target and OAR, target not covered by planning target volume (PTV) and OAR close to the high dose area. There was no clear consensus on the minimum improvement in dose to target or reduction in dose to OAR to warrant adaption.ConclusionOn-line ART has been implemented successfully internationally. Initial practice maintains conventional professional roles and responsibilities, however there is trend to changing roles for the future. There is little consensus regarding the triggers of adaption.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity participation in health responses in humanitarian crises is increasingly promoted by humanitarian actors to support adoption of measures that are relevant and effective to local needs. Our aim was to understand the role of community participation in humanitarian health responses for conflict-affected populations (including forcibly displaced populations) in low- and middle-income countries and the barriers and facilitators to community participation in healthcare responses.MethodsUsing a systematic review methodology, following the PRISMA protocol, we searched four bibliographic databases for publications reporting peer-reviewed primary research. Studies were selected if they reported how conflict-affected populations were involved in healthcare responses in low- and middle-income settings, and associated changes in healthcare responses or health outcomes. We applied descriptive thematic synthesis and assessed study quality using study design-specific appraisal tools.ResultsOf 18,247 records identified through the database searching, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria. Various types of community participation were observed, with participation mostly involved in implementing interventions rather than framing problems or designing solutions. Most studies on community participation focused on changes in health services (access, utilisation, quality), community acceptability and awareness, and ownership and sustainability. Key barriers and facilitators to community participation included political will at national and local level, ongoing armed conflict, financial and economic factors, socio-cultural dynamics of communities, design of humanitarian responses, health system factors, and health knowledge and beliefs. Included studies were of mixed quality and the overall strength of evidence was weak. More generally there was limited critical engagement with concepts of participation.ConclusionThis review highlights the need for more research on more meaningful community participation in healthcare responses in conflict-affected communities, particularly in framing problems and creating solutions. More robust research is also required linking community participation with longer-term individual and health system outcomes, and that critically engages in constructs of community participation.

Project description:Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.