Improving health and social systems for all children in LMICs: structural innovations to deliver high-quality services.

Despite health gains over the past 30 years, children and adolescents are not reaching their health potential in many low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition to health systems, social systems, such as schools, communities, families, and digital platforms, can be used to promote health. We did a targeted literature review of how well health and social systems are meeting the needs of children in LMICs using the framework of The Lancet Global Health Commission on high-quality health systems and we reviewed evidence for structural reforms in health and social sectors. We found that quality of services for children is substandard across both health and social systems. Health systems have deficits in care competence (eg, diagnosis and management), system competence (eg, timeliness, continuity, and referral), user experience (eg, respect and usability), service provision for common and serious conditions (eg, cancer, trauma, and mental health), and service offerings for adolescents. Education and social services for child health are limited by low funding and poor coordination with other sectors. Structural reforms are more likely to improve service quality substantially and at scale than are micro-level efforts. Promising approaches include governing for quality (eg, leadership, expert management, and learning systems), redesigning service delivery to maximise outcomes, and empowering families to better care for children and to demand quality care from health and social systems. Additional research is needed on health needs across the life course, health system performance for children and families, and large-scale evaluation of promising health and social programmes.

Neonatal mortality in Kenyan hospitals: a multisite, retrospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most of the deaths among neonates in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be prevented through universal access to basic high-quality health services including essential facility-based inpatient care. However, poor routine data undermines data-informed efforts to monitor and promote improvements in the quality of newborn care across hospitals. METHODS: Continuously collected routine patients' data from structured paper record forms for all admissions to newborn units (NBUs) from 16 purposively selected Kenyan public hospitals that are part of a clinical information network were analysed together with data from all paediatric admissions ages 0-13 years from 14 of these hospitals. Data are used to show the proportion of all admissions and deaths in the neonatal age group and examine morbidity and mortality patterns, stratified by birth weight, and their variation across hospitals. FINDINGS: During the 354 hospital months study period, 90 222 patients were admitted to the 14 hospitals contributing NBU and general paediatric ward data. 46% of all the admissions were neonates (aged 0-28 days), but they accounted for 66% of the deaths in the age group 0-13 years. 41 657 inborn neonates were admitted in the NBUs across the 16 hospitals during the study period. 4266/41 657 died giving a crude mortality rate of 10.2% (95% CI 9.97% to 10.55%), with 60% of these deaths occurring on the first-day of admission. Intrapartum-related complications was the single most common diagnosis among the neonates with birth weight of 2000 g or more who died. A threefold variation in mortality across hospitals was observed for birth weight categories 1000-1499 g and 1500-1999 g. INTERPRETATION: The high proportion of neonatal deaths in hospitals may reflect changing patterns of childhood mortality. Majority of newborns died of preventable causes (>95%). Despite availability of high-impact low-cost interventions, hospitals have high and very variable mortality proportions after stratification by birth weight.

Pulse oximetry adoption and oxygen orders at paediatric admission over 7 years in Kenya: a multihospital retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise adoption and explore specific clinical and patient factors that might influence pulse oximetry and oxygen use in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) over time; to highlight useful considerations for entities working on programmes to improve access to pulse oximetry and oxygen. DESIGN: A multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: All admissions (n=132 737) to paediatric wards of 18 purposely selected public hospitals in Kenya that joined a Clinical Information Network (CIN) between March 2014 and December 2020. OUTCOMES: Pulse oximetry use and oxygen prescription on admission; we performed growth-curve modelling to investigate the association of patient factors with study outcomes over time while adjusting for hospital factors. RESULTS: Overall, pulse oximetry was used in 48.8% (64 722/132 737) of all admission cases. Use rose on average with each month of participation in the CIN (OR: 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18) but patterns of adoption were highly variable across hospitals suggesting important factors at hospital level influence use of pulse oximetry. Of those with pulse oximetry measurement, 7% (4510/64 722) had hypoxaemia (SpO2 <90%). Across the same period, 8.6% (11 428/132 737) had oxygen prescribed but in 87%, pulse oximetry was either not done or the hypoxaemia threshold (SpO2 <90%) was not met. Lower chest-wall indrawing and other respiratory symptoms were associated with pulse oximetry use at admission and were also associated with oxygen prescription in the absence of pulse oximetry or hypoxaemia. CONCLUSION: The adoption of pulse oximetry recommended in international guidelines for assessing children with severe illness has been slow and erratic, reflecting system and organisational weaknesses. Most oxygen orders at admission seem driven by clinical and situational factors other than the presence of hypoxaemia. Programmes aiming to implement pulse oximetry and oxygen systems will likely need a long-term vision to promote adoption, guideline development and adherence and continuously examine impact.

Employing learning health system principles to advance research on severe neonatal and paediatric illness in Kenya.

We have worked to develop a Clinical Information Network (CIN) in Kenya as an early form of learning health systems (LHS) focused on paediatric and neonatal care that now spans 22 hospitals. CIN's aim was to examine important outcomes of hospitalisation at scale, identify and ultimately solve practical problems of service delivery, drive improvements in quality and test interventions. By including multiple routine settings in research, we aimed to promote generalisability of findings and demonstrate potential efficiencies derived from LHS. We illustrate the nature and range of research CIN has supported over the past 7 years as a form of LHS. Clinically, this has largely focused on common, serious paediatric illnesses such as pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea with dehydration with recent extensions to neonatal illnesses. CIN also enables examination of the quality of care, for example that provided to children with severe malnutrition and the challenges encountered in routine settings in adopting simple technologies (pulse oximetry) and more advanced diagnostics (eg, Xpert MTB/RIF). Although regular feedback to hospitals has been associated with some improvements in quality data continue to highlight system challenges that undermine provision of basic, quality care (eg, poor access to blood glucose testing and routine microbiology). These challenges include those associated with increased mortality risk (eg, delays in blood transfusion). Using the same data the CIN platform has enabled conduct of randomised trials and supports malaria vaccine and most recently COVID-19 surveillance. Employing LHS principles has meant engaging front-line workers, clinical managers and national stakeholders throughout. Our experience suggests LHS can be developed in low and middle-income countries that efficiently enable contextually appropriate research and contribute to strengthening of health services and research systems.

Preterm care during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative risk analysis of neonatal deaths averted by kangaroo mother care versus mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is disrupting health services for mothers and newborns, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Preterm newborns are particularly vulnerable. We undertook analyses of the benefits of kangaroo mother care (KMC) on survival among neonates weighing ≤2000 g compared with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquired from infected mothers/caregivers. METHODS: We modelled two scenarios over 12 months. Scenario 1 compared the survival benefits of KMC with universal coverage (99%) and mortality risk due to COVID-19. Scenario 2 estimated incremental deaths from reduced coverage and complete disruption of KMC. Projections were based on the most recent data for 127 LMICs (~90% of global births), with results aggregated into five regions. FINDINGS: Our worst-case scenario (100% transmission) could result in 1,950 neonatal deaths from COVID-19. Conversely, 125,680 neonatal lives could be saved with universal KMC coverage. Hence, the benefit of KMC is 65-fold higher than the mortality risk of COVID-19. If recent evidence of 10% transmission was applied, the ratio would be 630-fold. We estimated a 50% reduction in KMC coverage could result in 12,570 incremental deaths and full disruption could result in 25,140 incremental deaths, representing a 2·3-4·6% increase in neonatal mortality across the 127 countries. INTERPRETATION: The survival benefit of KMC far outweighs the small risk of death due to COVID-19. Preterm newborns are at risk, especially in LMICs where the consequences of disruptions are substantial. Policymakers and healthcare professionals need to protect services and ensure clearer messaging to keep mothers and newborns together, even if the mother is SARS-CoV-2-positive. FUNDING: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Elma Philanthropies; Wellcome Trust; and Joint Global Health Trials scheme of Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust.