Health facility management and primary health care performance in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is a critical foundation of high-quality health systems. Health facility management has been studied in high-income countries, but there are significant measurement gaps about facility management and primary health care performance in low and middle-income countries. A primary health care facility management evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool) was initially piloted in Ghana where better facility management was associated with higher performance on select primary health care outcomes such as essential drug availability, trust in providers, ease of following a provider's advice, and overall patient-reported quality rating. In this study, we sought to understand health facility management within Uganda's decentralized primary health care system. METHODS: We administered and analyzed a cross-sectional household and health facility survey conducted in Uganda in 2019, assessing facility management using the PRIME-Tool. RESULTS: Better facility management was associated with better essential drug availability but not better performance on measures of stocking equipment. Facilities with better PRIME-Tool management scores trended towards better performance on a number of experiential quality measures. We found significant disparities in the management performance of primary health care facilities. In particular, patients with greater wealth and education and those living in urban areas sought care at facilities that performed better on management. Private facilities and hospitals performed better on the management index than public facilities and health centers and clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that investments in stronger facility management in Uganda may strengthen key aspects of facility readiness such as essential drug availability and potentially could affect experiential quality of care. Nevertheless, the stark disparities demonstrate that Uganda policymakers need to target investments strategically in order to improve primary health care equitably across socioeconomic status and geography. Moreover, other low and middle-income countries may benefit from the use of the PRIME-Tool to rapidly assess facility management with the goal of understanding and improving primary health care performance.

Smartphone-based Assessment of Preoperative Decision Conflict and Postoperative Physical Activity Among Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinically significant decision conflict (CSDC) among patients undergoing cancer surgery and associations with postoperative physical activity, as measured through smartphone accelerometer data. BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer face challenging treatment decisions, which may lead to CSDC. CSDC negatively affects patient-provider relationships, psychosocial functioning, and health-related quality of life; however, physical manifestations of CSDC remain poorly characterized. METHODS: Adult smartphone-owners undergoing surgery for breast, skin-soft-tissue, head-and-neck, or abdominal cancer (July 2017-2019) were approached. Patients downloaded the Beiwe application that delivered the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) preoperatively and collected smartphone accelerometer data continuously from enrollment through 6 months postop-eratively. Restricted-cubic-spline regression, adjusting for a priori potential confounders (age, type of surgery, support status, and postoperative complications) was used to determine trends in postoperative daily physical activity among patients with and without CSDC (DCS score >25/100). RESULTS: Among 99 patients who downloaded the application, 85 completed the DCS (86% participation rate). Twenty-three (27%) reported CSDC. These patients were younger (mean age 48.3 years [standard deviation 14.2]-vs-55.0 [13.3], P = 0.047) and more frequently lived alone (22%-vs-6%, P = 0.042). There were no differences in preoperative physical activity (115.4 minutes [95%CI 90.9, 139.9]-vs-110.8 [95%CI 95.7, 126.0], P = 0.753). Adjusted postoperative physical activity was lower among patients reporting CSDC at 30 days (difference 33.1 minutes [95%CI 5.93,60.2], P = 0.017), 60 days 35.5 [95%CI 8.50, 62.5], P = 0.010 and 90 days 31.8 [95%CI 5.44, 58.1], P = 0.018 postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: CSDC was prevalent among patients who underwent cancer surgery and associated with lower postoperatively daily physical activity. These data highlight the importance of addressing modifiable decisional needs of patients through enhanced shared decision-making.

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.

Correction to: Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

In the original version of the article, Dominique Vervoort's last name was misspelled. It is correct as reflected here. The original article has been updated.

Global Survey of Perceptions of the Surgical Safety Checklist Among Medical Students, Trainees, and Early Career Providers.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) has been shown to reduce perioperative complications across global health systems. We sought to assess perceptions of the SSC and suggestions for its improvement among medical students, trainees, and early career providers. METHODS: From July to September 2019, a survey assessing perceptions of the SSC was disseminated through InciSioN, the International Student Surgical Network comprising medical students, trainees, and early career providers pursuing surgery. Individuals with ≥2 years of independent practice after training were excluded. Respondents were categorized according to any clinical versus solely non-clinical SSC exposure. Logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between clinical/non-clinical exposure and promoting future use of the SSC, adjusting for potential confounders/mediators: training level, human development index, and first perceptions of the SSC. Thematic analysis was conducted on suggestions for SSC improvement. RESULTS: Respondent participation rate was 24%. Three hundred and eighteen respondents were included in final analyses; 215 (67%) reported clinical exposure and 190 (60%) were promoters of future SSC use. Clinical exposure was associated with greater odds of promoting future SSC use (aOR 1.81 95% CI [1.03-3.19], p = 0.039). A greater proportion of promoters reported "Improved Operating Room Communication" as a goal of the SSC (0.21 95% CI [0.15-0.27]-vs.-0.12 [0.06-0.17], p = 0.031), while non-promoters reported the SSC goals were "Not Well Understood" (0.08 95% CI [0.03-0.12]-vs.-0.03 [0.01-0.05], p = 0.032). Suggestions for SSC improvement emphasized context-specific adaptability and earlier formal training. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical exposure to the SSC was associated with promoting its future use. Earlier formal clinical training may improve perceptions and future use among medical students, trainees, and early career providers.