Management Practices and Quality of Care: Evidence from the Private Health Care Sector in Tanzania.

We measure the adoption of management practices in over 220 private for-profit and non-profit health facilities in 64 districts across Tanzania and link these data to process quality-of-care metrics, assessed using undercover standardised patients and clinical observations. We find that better managed health facilities are more likely to provide correct treatment in accordance with national treatment guidelines, adhere to a checklist of essential questions and examinations, and comply with infection prevention and control practices. Moving from the 10th to the 90th percentile in the management practice score is associated with a 48% increase in correct treatment. We then leverage a large-scale field experiment of an internationally recognised management support intervention in which health facilities are assessed against comprehensive standards, given an individually tailored quality improvement plan and supported through training and mentoring visits. We find zero to small effects on management scores, suggesting that improving management practices in this setting may be challenging.

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.

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).

How much healthcare is wasted? A cross-sectional study of outpatient overprovision in private-for-profit and faith-based health facilities in Tanzania.

Overprovision-healthcare whose harm exceeds its benefit-is of increasing concern in low- and middle-income countries, where the growth of the private-for-profit sector may amplify incentives for providing unnecessary care, and achieving universal health coverage will require efficient resource use. Measurement of overprovision has conceptual and practical challenges. We present a framework to conceptualize and measure overprovision, comparing for-profit and not-for-profit private outpatient facilities across 18 of mainland Tanzania's 22 regions. We developed a novel conceptualization of three harms of overprovision: economic (waste of resources), public health (unnecessary use of antimicrobial agents risking development of resistant organisms) and clinical (high risk of harm to individual patients). Standardized patients (SPs) visited 227 health facilities (99 for-profit and 128 not-for-profit) between May 3 and June 12, 2018, completing 909 visits and presenting 4 cases: asthma, non-malarial febrile illness, tuberculosis and upper respiratory tract infection. Tests and treatments prescribed were categorized as necessary or unnecessary, and unnecessary care was classified by type of harm(s). Fifty-three percent of 1995 drugs prescribed and 43% of 891 tests ordered were unnecessary. At the patient-visit level, 81% of SPs received unnecessary care, 67% received care harmful to public health (prescription of unnecessary antibiotics or antimalarials) and 6% received clinically harmful care. Thirteen percent of SPs were prescribed an antibiotic defined by WHO as 'Watch' (high priority for antimicrobial stewardship). Although overprovision was common in all sectors and geographical regions, clinically harmful care was more likely in for-profit than faith-based facilities and less common in urban than rural areas. Overprovision was widespread in both for-profit and not-for-profit facilities, suggesting considerable waste in the private sector, not solely driven by profit. Unnecessary antibiotic or antimalarial prescriptions are of concern for the development of antimicrobial resistance. Option for policymakers to address overprovision includes the use of strategic purchasing arrangements, provider training and patient education.

Infection prevention and control compliance in Tanzanian outpatient facilities: a cross-sectional study with implications for the control of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads, weak health systems must not become a vehicle for transmission through poor infection prevention and control practices. We assessed the compliance of health workers with infection prevention and control practices relevant to COVID-19 in outpatient settings in Tanzania, before the pandemic. METHODS: This study was based on a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected as part of a randomised controlled trial in private for-profit dispensaries and health centres and in faith-based dispensaries, health centres, and hospitals, in 18 regions. We observed provider-patient interactions in outpatient consultation rooms, laboratories, and dressing rooms, and categorised infection prevention and control practices into four domains: hand hygiene, glove use, disinfection of reusable equipment, and waste management. We calculated compliance as the proportion of indications (infection risks) in which a health worker performed a correct action, and examined associations between compliance and health worker and facility characteristics using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7 and April 5, 2018, we visited 228 health facilities, and observed at least one infection prevention and control indication in 220 facilities (118 [54%] dispensaries, 66 [30%] health centres, and 36 [16%] hospitals). 18 710 indications were observed across 734 health workers (49 [7%] medical doctors, 214 [29%] assistant medical officers or clinical officers, 106 [14%] nurses or midwives, 126 [17%] clinical assistants, and 238 [32%] laboratory technicians or assistants). Compliance was 6·9% for hand hygiene (n=8655 indications), 74·8% for glove use (n=4915), 4·8% for disinfection of reusable equipment (n=841), and 43·3% for waste management (n=4299). Facility location was not associated with compliance in any of the infection prevention and control domains. Facility level and ownership were also not significantly associated with compliance, except for waste management. For hand hygiene, nurses and midwives (odds ratio 5·80 [95% CI 3·91-8·61]) and nursing and medical assistants (2·65 [1·67-4·20]) significantly outperformed the reference category of assistant medical officers or clinical officers. For glove use, nurses and midwives (10·06 [6·68-15·13]) and nursing and medical assistants (5·93 [4·05-8·71]) also significantly outperformed the reference category. Laboratory technicians performed significantly better in glove use (11·95 [8·98-15·89]), but significantly worse in hand hygiene (0·27 [0·17-0·43]) and waste management (0·25 [0·14-0·44] than the reference category. Health worker age was negatively associated with correct glove use and female health workers were more likely to comply with hand hygiene. INTERPRETATION: Health worker infection prevention and control compliance, particularly for hand hygiene and disinfection, was inadequate in these outpatient settings. Improvements in provision of supplies and health worker behaviours are urgently needed in the face of the current pandemic. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department for International Development, Global Challenges Research Fund, Wellcome Trust.

How to do (or not to do) using the standardized patient method to measure clinical quality of care in LMIC health facilities.

Standardized patients (SPs), i.e. mystery shoppers for healthcare providers, are increasingly used as a tool to measure quality of clinical care, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where medical record abstraction is unlikely to be feasible. The SP method allows care to be observed without the provider's knowledge, removing concerns about the Hawthorne effect, and means that providers can be directly compared against each other. However, their undercover nature means that there are methodological and ethical challenges beyond those found in normal fieldwork. We draw on a systematic review and our own experience of implementing such studies to discuss six key steps in designing and executing SP studies in healthcare facilities, which are more complex than those in retail settings. Researchers must carefully choose the symptoms or conditions the SPs will present in order to minimize potential harm to fieldworkers, reduce the risk of detection and ensure that there is a meaningful measure of clinical care. They must carefully define the types of outcomes to be documented, develop the study scripts and questionnaires, and adopt an appropriate sampling strategy. Particular attention is required to ethical considerations and to assessing detection by providers. Such studies require thorough planning, piloting and training, and a dedicated and engaged field team. With sufficient effort, SP studies can provide uniquely rich data, giving insights into how care is provided which is of great value to both researchers and policymakers.