Dataset Information

Effect of a multifaceted intervention to improve clinical quality of care through stepwise certification (SafeCare) in health-care facilities in Tanzania: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Quality of care is consistently shown to be inadequate in health-care settings in many low-income and middle-income countries, including in private facilities, which are rapidly growing in number but often do not have effective quality stewardship mechanisms. The SafeCare programme aims to address this gap in quality of care, using a standards-based approach adapted to low-resource settings, involving assessments, mentoring, training, and access to loans, to improve clinical quality and facility business performance. We assessed the effect of the SafeCare programme on quality of patient care in faith-based and private for-profit facilities in Tanzania.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised controlled trial, health facilities were eligible if they were dispensaries, health centres, or hospitals in the faith-based or private for-profit sectors in Tanzania. We randomly assigned facilities (1:1) using computer-generated stratified randomisation to receive the full SafeCare package (intervention) or an assessment only (control). Implementing staff and participants were masked to outcome measurement and the primary outcomes were measured by fieldworkers who had no knowledge of the study group allocation. The primary outcomes were health worker compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) practices as measured by observation of provider-patient interactions, and correct case management of undercover standardised patients at endline (after a minimum of 18 months). Analyses were by modified intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN93644888.

Findings

Between March 7 and Nov 30, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 237 health facilities to the intervention (n=118) or control (n=119). Nine facilities (seven intervention facilities and two control facilities) closed during the trial and were not included in the analysis. We observed 29 608 IPC indications in 5425 provider-patient interactions between Feb 7 and April 5, 2018. Health facilities received visits from 909 standardised patients between May 3 and June 12, 2018. Intervention facilities had a 4·4 percentage point (95% CI 0·9-7·7; p=0.015) higher mean SafeCare standards assessment score at endline than control facilities. However, there was no evidence of a difference in clinical quality between intervention and control groups at endline. Compliance with IPC practices was observed in 8181 (56·9%) of 14 366 indications in intervention facilities and 8336 (54·7%) of 15 242 indications in control facilities (absolute difference 2·2 percentage points, 95% CI -0·2 to -4·7; p=0·071). Correct management occurred in 120 (27·0%) of 444 standardised patients in the intervention group and in 136 (29·2%) of 465 in the control group (absolute difference -2·8 percentage points, 95% CI -8·6 to -3·1; p=0·36).

Interpretation

SafeCare did not improve clinical quality as assessed by compliance with IPC practices and correct case management. The absence of effect on clinical quality could reflect a combination of insufficient intervention intensity, insufficient links between structural quality and care processes, scarcity of resources for quality improvement, and inadequate financial and regulatory incentives for improvement.

Funding

UK Health Systems Research Initiative (Medical Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, UK Department for International Development, Global Challenges Research Fund, and Wellcome Trust).

SUBMITTER: King JJC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8370880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn developing countries referral of severely ill children from primary care to district hospitals is common, but hospital care is often of poor quality. However, strategies to change multiple paediatric care practices in rural hospitals have rarely been evaluated.Methods and findingsThis cluster randomized trial was conducted in eight rural Kenyan district hospitals, four of which were randomly assigned to a full intervention aimed at improving quality of clinical care (evidence-based guidelines, training, job aides, local facilitation, supervision, and face-to-face feedback; n? =? 4) and the remaining four to control intervention (guidelines, didactic training, job aides, and written feedback; n ?=? 4). Prespecified structure, process, and outcome indicators were measured at baseline and during three and five 6-monthly surveys in control and intervention hospitals, respectively. Primary outcomes were process of care measures, assessed at 18 months postbaseline. In both groups performance improved from baseline. Completion of admission assessment tasks was higher in intervention sites at 18 months (mean? =? 0.94 versus 0.65, adjusted difference 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.05-0.29]). Uptake of guideline recommended therapeutic practices was also higher within intervention hospitals: adoption of once daily gentamicin (89.2% versus 74.4%; 17.1% [8.04%-26.1%]); loading dose quinine (91.9% versus 66.7%, 26.3% [-3.66% to 56.3%]); and adequate prescriptions of intravenous fluids for severe dehydration (67.2% versus 40.6%; 29.9% [10.9%-48.9%]). The proportion of children receiving inappropriate doses of drugs in intervention hospitals was lower (quinine dose >40 mg/kg/day; 1.0% versus 7.5%; -6.5% [-12.9% to 0.20%]), and inadequate gentamicin dose (2.2% versus 9.0%; -6.8% [-11.9% to -1.6%]).ConclusionsSpecific efforts are needed to improve hospital care in developing countries. A full, multifaceted intervention was associated with greater changes in practice spanning multiple, high mortality conditions in rural Kenyan hospitals than a partial intervention, providing one model for bridging the evidence to practice gap and improving admission care in similar settings.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of a multifaceted intervention aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care.DesignLarge-sized, two-arm, open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial.SettingAll primary care physicians working for the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) in Galicia (region in north-west Spain).ParticipantsThe seven spatial clusters were distributed by unequal randomisation (3:4) of the intervention and control groups. A total of 1217 physicians (1.30 million patients) were recruited from intervention clusters and 1393 physicians (1.46 million patients) from control clusters.InterventionsOne-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study; an online course integrated in practice accreditation; and a clinical decision support system.Main outcome measuresChanges in the ESAC (European Surveillance of Antimicrobial Consumption) quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic use. We used generalised linear mixed and conducted a ROI analysis to ascertain the overall cost savings.ResultsMedian follow-up was 19 months. The adjusted effect on overall antibiotic prescribing attributable to the intervention was - 4.2% (95% CI: - 5.3% to - 3.2%), with this being more pronounced for penicillins - 6.5 (95% CI: - 7.9% to - 5.2%) and for the ratio of consumption of broad- to narrow-spectrum penicillins, cephalosporins, and macrolides - 9.0% (95% CI: - 14.0 to - 4.1%). The cost of the intervention was €87 per physician. Direct savings per physician attributable to the reduction in antibiotic prescriptions was €311 for the NHS and €573 for patient contributions, with an ROI of €2.57 and €5.59 respectively.ConclusionsInterventions designed on the basis of gaps in physicians' knowledge of and attitudes to misprescription can improve antibiotic prescribing and yield important direct cost savings.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN24158380 . Registered 5 February 2009.

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) uptake is suboptimal in many countries with limited evidence available on interventions to enhance DRS uptake in primary care. We investigated the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve uptake of Ireland's national DRS programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.Design/settingWe conducted a cluster randomised pilot trial, embedded process evaluation and cost analysis in general practice, July 2019 to January 2020.ParticipantsEight practices participated in the trial. For the process evaluation, surveys were conducted with 25 staff at intervention practices. Interviews were conducted with nine staff at intervention practices, and 10 patients who received the intervention.InterventionsThe intervention comprised practice reimbursement, an audit of attendance, electronic prompts targeting professionals, General Practice-endorsed patient reminders and a patient information leaflet. Practices were randomly allocated to intervention (n=4) or wait-list control (n=4) (usual care).OutcomesStaff and patient interviews explored their perspectives on the intervention. Patient registration and attendance, including intention to attend, were measured at baseline and 6 months. Microcosting was used to estimate intervention delivery cost.ResultsThe process evaluation identified that enablers of feasibility included practice culture and capacity to protect time, systems to organise care, and staff skills, and workarounds to improve intervention 'fit'. At 6 months, 22/71 (31%) of baseline non-attenders in intervention practices subsequently attended screening compared with 15/87 (17%) in control practices. The total delivery cost across intervention practices (patients=363) was €2509, averaging €627 per practice and €6.91 per audited patient. Continuation criteria supported proceeding to a definitive trial.ConclusionsThe Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance intervention is feasible in primary care; however, consideration should be given to how best to facilitate local tailoring. A definitive trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness is required with preliminary results suggesting a positive effect on uptake.Trial registration numberNCT03901898.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Feedback is potentially effective in improving the quality of care. However, merely sending reports is no guarantee that performance data are used as input for systematic quality improvement (QI). Therefore, we developed a multifaceted intervention tailored to prospectively analyzed barriers to using indicators: the Information Feedback on Quality Indicators (InFoQI) program. This program aims to promote the use of performance indicator data as input for local systematic QI. We will conduct a study to assess the impact of the InFoQI program on patient outcome and organizational process measures of care, and to gain insight into barriers and success factors that affected the program's impact. The study will be executed in the context of intensive care. This paper presents the study's protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a cluster randomized controlled trial with intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. We will include ICUs that submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and that agree to allocate at least one intensivist and one ICU nurse for implementation of the intervention. Eligible ICUs (clusters) will be randomized to receive basic NICE registry feedback (control arm) or to participate in the InFoQI program (intervention arm). The InFoQI program consists of comprehensive feedback, establishing a local, multidisciplinary QI team, and educational outreach visits. The primary outcome measures will be length of ICU stay and the proportion of shifts with a bed occupancy rate above 80%. We will also conduct a process evaluation involving ICUs in the intervention arm to investigate their actual exposure to and experiences with the InFoQI program. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform those involved in providing ICU care on the feasibility of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention and its ability to accelerate systematic and local quality improvement. Although our study will be conducted within the domain of intensive care, we believe our conclusions will be generalizable to other settings that have a quality registry including an indicator set available. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50542146.

Project description:BackgroundWhile patient safety incident reporting is of key importance for patient safety in primary care, the reporting rate by healthcare professionals remains low. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a risk management program in increasing the reporting rate within multiprofessional primary care facilities.MethodsA nation-wide cluster-randomised controlled trial was performed in France, with each cluster defined as a primary care facility. The intervention included professional e-learning training, identification of a risk management advisor, and multidisciplinary meetings to address incident analysis. In the first observational period, a patient safety incident reporting system for professionals was implemented in all facilities. Then, facilities were randomised, and the program was implemented. Incidents were reported over the 15-month study period. Quasi-Poisson models were used to compare reporting rates.ResultsThirty-five facilities (intervention, n = 17; control, n = 18) were included, with 169 and 232 healthcare professionals, respectively, involved. Overall, 7 out of 17 facilities carried out the entire program (41.2%), while 6 did not hold meetings (35.3%); 48.5% of professionals logged on to the e-learning website. The relative rate of incidents reported was 2.7 (95% CI = [0.84-11.0]; p = 0.12). However, a statistically significant decrease in the incident rate between the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods was observed for the control arm (HR = 0.2; 95% CI = [0.05-0.54]; p = 0.02), but not for the intervention arm (HR = 0.54; 95% CI = [0.2-1.54]; p = 0.23).ConclusionThis program didn't lead to a significant improvement in the patient safety incident reporting rate by professionals but seemed to sustain reporting over time. Considering that the program was fully implemented in only 41% of facilities, this highlights the difficulty of implementing such multidisciplinary programs in primary care despite its adaptation to the setting. A better understanding of how risk management is currently organized in these multiprofessional facilities is of key importance to improve patient safety in primary care.Trial registrationsThe study has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02403388) on 30 March 2015.

Project description:BackgroundChronic (systolic) heart failure (CHF) is a common and disabling condition. Adherence to evidence-based guidelines in primary care has been shown to improve health outcomes. The aim was to explore the impact of a multidisciplinary educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) (Train the trainer = TTT) on patient and performance outcomes.MethodsThis paper presents the key findings from the trial and discusses the lessons learned during the implementation of the TTT trial. Primary care practices were randomly assigned to the TTT intervention or to the control group. 37 GPs (18 TTT, 19 control) were randomised and 168 patients diagnosed with ascertained CHF (91 TTT, 77 control) were enrolled. GPs in the intervention group attended four meetings addressing clinical practice guidelines and pharmacotherapy feedback. The primary outcome was patient self-reported quality of life at seven months, using the SF-36 Physical Functioning scale. Secondary outcomes included other SF-36 scales, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), total mortality, heart failure hospital admissions, prescribing, depressive disorders (PHQ-9), behavioural change (European Heart Failure Self-Care Behaviour Scale), patient-perceived quality of care (EUROPEP) and improvement of heart failure using NT-proBNP-levels. Because recruitment targets were not achieved an exploratory analysis was conducted.ResultsThere was high baseline achievement in both groups for many outcomes. At seven months, there were no significant mean difference between groups for the primary outcome measure (-3.3, 95%CI -9.7 to 3.1, p = 0.30). The only difference in secondary outcomes related to the prescribing of aldosterone antagonists by GPs in the intervention group, with significant between group differences at follow-up (42 vs. 24%, adjusted OR = 4.0, 95%CI 1.2-13; p = 0.02).ConclusionThe intervention did not change the primary outcome or most secondary outcomes. Recruitment targets were not achieved and the under-recruitment of practices and patients alongside a selection bias of participating GPs, prohibit definite conclusions, but the CI indicates a non-effectiveness of the intervention in this sample. We describe the lessons learned from conducting the trial for the future planning and conduct of confirmatory trials in primary care.Trial registrationISRCTN08601529.

Project description:BackgroundInfluenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for frail older people. Whilst the antiviral drug oseltamivir (a neuraminidase inhibitor) is approved for treatment and prophylaxis of influenza during outbreaks, there have been no trials comparing treatment only (T) versus treatment and prophylaxis (T&P) in Aged Care Facilities (ACFs). Our objective was to compare a policy of T versus T&P for influenza outbreaks in ACFs.Methods and findingsWe performed a cluster randomised controlled trial in 16 ACFs, that followed a policy of either "T"-oseltamivir treatment (75 mg twice a day for 5 days)-or "T&P"-treatment and prophylaxis (75 mg once a day for 10 days) for influenza outbreaks over three years, in addition to enhanced surveillance. The primary outcome measure was the attack rate of influenza. Secondary outcomes measures were deaths, hospitalisation, pneumonia and adverse events. Laboratory testing was performed to identify the viral cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) outbreaks. The study period 30 June 2006 to 23 December 2008 included three southern hemisphere winters. During that time, influenza was confirmed as the cause of nine of the 23 ILI outbreaks that occurred amongst the 16 ACFs. The policy of T&P resulted in a significant reduction in the influenza attack rate amongst residents: 93/255 (36%) in residents in T facilities versus 91/397 (23%) in T&P facilities (p=0.002). We observed a non-significant reduction in staff: 46/216 (21%) in T facilities versus 47/350 (13%) in T&P facilities (p=0.5). There was a significant reduction in mean duration of outbreaks (T=24 days, T&P=11 days, p=0.04). Deaths, hospitalisations and pneumonia were non-significantly reduced in the T&P allocated facilities. Drug adverse events were common but tolerated.ConclusionOur trial lacked power but these results provide some support for a policy of "treatment and prophylaxis" with oseltamivir in controlling influenza outbreaks in ACFs.Trial registration[corrected] Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12606000278538.

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring medically certified causes of death is essential to shape national health policies, track progress to Sustainable Development Goals, and gauge responses to epidemic and pandemic disease. The combination of electronic health information systems with new methods for data quality monitoring can facilitate quality assessments and help target quality improvement. Since 2015, Tanzania has been upgrading its Civil Registration and Vital Statistics system including efforts to improve the availability and quality of mortality data.MethodsWe used a computer application (ANACONDA v4.01) to assess the quality of medical certification of cause of death (MCCD) and ICD-10 coding for the underlying cause of death for 155,461 deaths from health facilities from 2014 to 2018. From 2018 to 2019, we continued quality analysis for 2690 deaths in one large administrative region 9 months before, and 9 months following MCCD quality improvement interventions. Interventions addressed governance, training, process, and practice. We assessed changes in the levels, distributions, and nature of unusable and insufficiently specified codes, and how these influenced estimates of the leading causes of death.Results9.7% of expected annual deaths in Tanzania obtained a medically certified cause of death. Of these, 52% of MCCD ICD-10 codes were usable for health policy and planning, with no significant improvement over 5 years. Of certified deaths, 25% had unusable codes, 17% had insufficiently specified codes, and 6% were undetermined causes. Comparing the before and after intervention periods in one Region, codes usable for public health policy purposes improved from 48 to 65% within 1 year and the resulting distortions in the top twenty cause-specific mortality fractions due to unusable causes reduced from 27.4 to 13.5%.ConclusionData from less than 5% of annual deaths in Tanzania are usable for informing policy. For deaths with medical certification, errors were prevalent in almost half. This constrains capacity to monitor the 15 SDG indicators that require cause-specific mortality. Sustainable quality assurance mechanisms and interventions can result in rapid improvements in the quality of medically certified causes of death. ANACONDA provides an effective means for evaluation of such changes and helps target interventions to remaining weaknesses.

Project description:In 2011, more than half of the patients with stroke in Australian hospitals were not assessed for the need for rehabilitation. Further, there were no recommended criteria to guide rehabilitation assessment decisions. Subsequently, a decision-making tool called the Assessment for Rehabilitation Tool (ART) was developed. The ART was designed to assist Australian hospital clinicians to identify the rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke using evidence-based criteria. The ART was released and made freely available for use in 2012. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an education-only intervention (1 onsite education session and distribution of the ART) and a multifaceted intervention (2 or more onsite education sessions, distribution of the ART, audit and feedback, barrier identification, site-specific strategy development, promotion of interdisciplinary teamwork, opinion leaders and reminders) for improving assessments of rehabilitation needs after stroke.Ten hospitals in 2 states of Australia were randomly assigned to an education-only or a multifaceted intervention. Medical records were audited by assessors blinded to group allocation before and after the implementation period. Difference in the proportion of patients assessed for rehabilitation before and after the intervention was analysed using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, with time period as the dependent variable, an interaction between intervention type and time included to test for differences between the interventions, and hospital included as the random effect to account for patient clustering.Data from 586 patients (284 pre-intervention; 302 post-intervention; age 76 years, 59 % male) showed that the multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the proportion of patients whose rehabilitation needs were assessed (reference category education-only; odds ratio 1.29, 95 % confidence interval 0.63-2.67, p = 0.483). Post-intervention, the odds of a patient's rehabilitation needs being assessed was 3.69 times greater than pre-intervention (95 % confidence interval 2.57-5.30, p < 0.001). Evidence-based criteria were not consistently used when patients were deemed to have no rehabilitation needs.A multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the assessment of rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke. Further interventions are required to ensure that all patients are assessed for the need for rehabilitation using evidence-based criteria.ANZCTR (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), ACTRN12616000340437.