Use of standardised patients to assess quality of healthcare in Nairobi, Kenya: a pilot, cross-sectional study with international comparisons.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of clinical care can be reliably measured in multiple settings using standardised patients (SPs), but this methodology has not been extensively used in Sub-Saharan Africa. This study validates the use of SPs for a variety of tracer conditions in Nairobi, Kenya, and provides new results on the quality of care in sampled primary care clinics. METHODS: We deployed 14 SPs in private and public clinics presenting either asthma, child diarrhoea, tuberculosis or unstable angina. Case management guidelines and checklists were jointly developed with the Ministry of Health. We validated the SP method based on the ability of SPs to avoid detection or dangerous situations, without imposing a substantial time burden on providers. We also evaluated the sensitivity of quality measures to SP characteristics. We assessed quality of practice through adherence to guidelines and checklists for the entire sample, stratified by case and stratified by sector, and in comparison with previously published results from urban India, rural India and rural China. RESULTS: Across 166 interactions in 42 facilities, detection rates and exposure to unsafe conditions were both zero. There were no detected outcome correlations with SP characteristics that would bias the results. Across all four conditions, 53% of SPs were correctly managed with wide variation across tracer conditions. SPs paid 76% less in public clinics, but proportions of correct management were similar to private clinics for three conditions and higher for the fourth. Kenyan outcomes compared favourably with India and China in all but the angina case. CONCLUSIONS: The SP method is safe and effective in the urban Kenyan setting for the assessment of clinical practice. The pilot results suggest that public providers in this setting provide similar rates of correct management to private providers at significantly lower out-of-pocket costs for patients. However, comparisons across countries are sensitive to the tracer condition considered.

Observations of infection prevention and control practices in primary health care, Kenya.

OBJECTIVE: To assess compliance with infection prevention and control practices in primary health care in Kenya. METHODS: We used an observational, patient-tracking tool to assess compliance with infection prevention and control practices by 1680 health-care workers during outpatient interactions with 14 328 patients at 935 health-care facilities in 2015. Compliance was assessed in five domains: hand hygiene; protective glove use; injections and blood sampling; disinfection of reusable equipment; and waste segregation. We calculated compliance by dividing the number of correct actions performed by the number of indications and evaluated associations between compliance and the health-care worker's and facility's characteristics. FINDINGS: Across 106 464 observed indications for an infection prevention and control practice, the mean compliance was 0.318 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.315 to 0.321). The compliance ranged from 0.023 (95% CI: 0.021 to 0.024) for hand hygiene to 0.871 (95% CI: 0.866 to 0.876) for injection and blood sampling safety. Compliance was weakly associated with the facility's characteristics (e.g. public or private, or level of specialization) and the health-care worker's knowledge of, and training in, infection prevention and control practices. CONCLUSION: The observational tool was effective for assessing compliance with infection prevention and control practices across multiple domains in primary health care in a low-income country. Compliance varied widely across infection prevention and control domains. The weak associations observed between compliance and the characteristics of health-care workers and facilities, such as knowledge and the availability of supplies, suggest that a broader focus on behavioural change is required.

A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries.

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.