Safety in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable settings: An evidence scanning approach for identifying patient safety interventions.

Background: The number of people living in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable (FCV) settings is growing rapidly and attention to achieving universal health coverage must be accompanied by sufficient focus on the safety of care for universal access to be meaningful. Healthcare workers in these settings are working under extreme conditions, often with insufficient contextualized evidence to support decision-making. Recognising the relative paucity of, and methodological issues in gathering evidence from these settings, the evidence scanning described in this paper considered which patient safety interventions might offer the 'better bet', eg, the most effective and appropriate intervention in FCV settings. Methods: An evidence scanning approach was used to examine the literature. The search was limited to FCV settings and low-income settings as defined by the World Bank, but if a systematic review included a mix of evidence from FCV/low income settings, as well as low-middle income settings, it was included. The search was conducted in English and limited to studies published from 2003 onwards, utilising Google Scholar as a publicly accessible database and further review of the grey literature, with specific attention to the outputs of non-governmental organisations. The search and subsequent analysis were completed between April and June 2020. Results: The majority of studies identified related to strengthening infection prevention and control which was also found to be the 'better bet' intervention that could generalise to other settings, be most feasible to implement, and most effective for improving patient care and associated outcomes. Other prioritized interventions include risk management, with contributing elements such as reporting, audits, and death review processes. Conclusions: Infection prevention and control interventions dominate in the literature for multiple reasons including strength of evidence, acceptability, feasibility, and impact on patient and health worker well-being. However, there is an urgent need to further develop the evidence base, specialist knowledge, and field guidance on a range of other patient safety interventions such as education and training, patient identification, subject specific safety actions, and risk management.

How to improve patient safety in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable settings: a Delphi study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is a high burden of adverse events and poor outcomes in fragile, conflict-affected and vulnerable (FCV) settings. To improve outcomes, there is a need to better identify which interventions can improve patient safety in these settings, as well as to develop strategies to optimise their implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study intends to generate a consensus on the most relevant patient safety interventions from experts with experience on FCV settings, including frontline clinicians and managers/administrators, non-governmental organisations, policymakers and researchers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study uses an online Delphi research approach (eDelphi). Participants will include experts from a range of backgrounds, including those working in a variety of FCV settings. Participants will be established contacts known to the research team or recruited via snowball sampling, and will be asked to identify and rank the importance of a variety of patient safety interventions. Consensus will be defined as >70% of participants agreeing/strongly agreeing or disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with a statement. Data analysis will be completed in Microsoft Excel and NVivo. The primary outcome of the study will be a list of the most relevant and applicable patient safety interventions for FCV settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from Imperial College London Ethics Committee (reference number 20IC665). Anonymous results will be made available to the public, academic organisations and policymakers.

Implementation research on measuring quality in primary care: balancing national needs with learning from the Eastern Mediterranean Region.

BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a core element of ensuring healthy lives, marking the third Sustainable Development Goal. It requires providing quality primary health-care (PHC) services. Assessment of quality of care considering a wide variety of contexts is a challenge. This study lists practical indicators to enhance the quality of PHC. OBJECTIVES: Demonstrating quality indicators for PHC that are feasible, comprehensive and adaptable to wide array of health systems and resource settings. METHODS: We applied the research framework: Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment. Exploration included a scoping review to identify quality indicators. Preparation included an eDelphi to refine the primary indicators' list. A panel of 27 experts reviewed the list that was later pilot tested in PHC facilities. The outcomes were presented to two further expert consultations, to refine indicators and plan for broader testing. Implementation included testing the indicators through a five-step process in 40 facilities. A regional consultation in May 2016 discussed the testing outcomes. RESULTS: Initial efforts identified 83 quality indicators at the PHC level that were then refined to a 34-indicator list covering the six domains of quality. A toolkit was also developed to test the feasibility of each indicator measurement, data availability, challenges and gaps. Pilot testing provided insight into modifying and adding some indicators. Wide variability was encountered within and in between facilities, and timely initiation of antenatal care, for example, ranged 31-90% in Oman and 11-98% in Tunisia. Indicators were highly feasible, and 29 out of 34 were measured in 75% of facilities or more. While challenges included gaps in capacity for data collection, the tool showed high adaptability to the local context and was adopted by countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) including Libya, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and Palestine. Stakeholders agreed on the high relevance and applicability of the proposed indicators that have been used to inform improvement. CONCLUSION: A cross-regional set of 34 quality indicators of PHC in the EMR was developed and adopted by a diverse group of countries. The toolkit showed high feasibility in pilot testing reflecting the practicality needed to encourage local uptake and sustainability. The core quality indicators are highly adaptable to different local and regional contexts regardless of current PHC strength or available resources. Continuous evaluation and sharing lessons of implementation and use are needed to ascertain the indicators' effectiveness in driving improvements in PHC and to refine and strengthen the evidence supporting the set of indicators for wider adoption.

Quality of health care and patient safety in extreme adversity settings in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a qualitative multicountry assessment.

BACKGROUND: Quality and patient safety are essential for the provision of effective health care services. Research on these aspects is lacking in settings of extreme adversity. AIMS: This study aimed to explore the perception of health care stakeholders working in extreme adversity settings of the quality of health care and patient safety. METHODS: This was a qualitative study conducted through semistructured interviews with 26 health care stakeholders from seven countries of the World Health Organization's Eastern Mediterranean Region which are experiencing emergencies. The interviews explored the respondents' perspectives of four aspects of quality and patient safety: definition of the quality of health care, challenges to the provision of good quality health care in emergency settings, priority health services and populations in emergency settings, and interventions to improve health care quality and patient safety. RESULTS: The participants emphasized that saving lives was the main priority in extreme adversity settings. While all people living in emergency situations were vulnerable and at risk, the respondents considered women and children, poor and disabled people, and those living in hard-to-reach areas the priority populations to be targeted by improvement interventions. The challenges to quality of health care were: financing problems, service inaccessibility, insecurity of health workers, break down in health systems, and inadequate infrastructure. Respondents proposed interventions to improve quality, however, their effective implementation remains challenging in these exceptional settings. CONCLUSIONS: The interventions identified can serve as a basis for improvements in health care quality that could be adapted to extreme adversity settings.

Quality healthcare in extreme adversity: Developing a framework for action.

Quality issue: Improving quality of care has become a global health priority to improve health outcomes and strengthen health systems, particularly in the context of achieving universal health coverage. Initial assessment: The delivery of quality essential health services in settings of extreme adversity, such as fragile, conflict-affected, vulnerable or disaster contexts, has been identified as a high priority globally to address the massive level of need. Choice of solution: This paper provides an action framework to systematically address the quality of health services for state and non-state actors working in such settings. The framework is designed to be practical, comprehensible and simple in adoption and implementation. It describes challenges, a set of medical needs and population priorities, a menu of quality-related interventions, and a hierarchy of health system levels defining the roles and responsibilities of key actors. Conclusion: Optimizing the use of limited resources in delivering the best quality possible in 'the hardest of the hard settings' is imperative.

Quality health care in extreme adversity-an action framework.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: There are record-setting numbers of people living in settings of extreme adversity and they continue to increase each year. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: There is a paucity of validated data on quality and safety across settings of extreme adversity. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: This paper argues for an action framework to address the unique challenges of providing quality in extreme adversity. IMPLEMENTATION: We describe a preliminary Quality in Extreme Adversity framework which has been informed by-and will continue to be validated through-literature, data collection, WHO expert consultations and through working in settings of extreme adversity with national authorities and NGOs. LESSONS LEARNED: Poor quality care costs lives, livelihoods and trust in health services. The recommended framework, based on evidence and experiential lessons, intends to address the WHO goal for 2019-2023 of 'one billion people better protected from health emergencies' (9).

Improving quality of care in conflict settings: access and infrastructure are fundamental.

QUALITY PROBLEM OR ISSUE: Armed conflicts pose significant challenges to ensuring timely access to quality health care services for millions around the world. INITIAL ASSESSMENT: Ensuring access and basic infrastructure for conflict-affected populations are overlooked in the global movement to provide quality of care. CHOICE OF SOLUTION: This paper identifies strategies and interventions to improve access to good quality care in settings and communities afflicted by conflict. LESSONS LEARNED: t is crucial to focus more attention on, and develop an evidence base for, ensuring access and basic infrastructure to improve quality of care in conflict-affected regions.

Microfinance and health interventions: Factors influencing loan repayment success with young men in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Poverty is associated with numerous poor health outcomes. Youth unemployment in Tanzania is approximately 13.7%, and concentrates in urban areas. These youth lack relevant job skills and access to financial capital. Microfinance continues to be implemented globally to address poverty, and increasingly has been linked to health interventions. Men less frequently are recipients of microfinance loans. We offered microcredit to young men in an area of Dar es Salaam with high poverty as part of a randomised controlled-trial to assess the efficacy of a microfinance and health leadership intervention in preventing STI acquisition. We used mixed methods to understand predictors of successful loan repayment. Our qualitative sub-study showed that leader influence, prior business experience, personal motivation, and planning facilitated repayment. Using a modified Poisson approach, our quantitative analysis showed that successful repayment was associated with business experience, education, increasing number of children, community of residence, percentage of network members trained in business, and repayment success of peer leaders. Our results suggest that enforcing group accountability and repayment rules, offering ongoing training, and using successful entrepreneurs as role models could increase repayment success in similar populations. These strategies could provide financial opportunity for men while minimising risk for microfinance institutions.

Implementing Innovations in Global Women's, Children's, and Adolescents' Health: Realizing the Potential for Implementation Science.

The launch of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the new Secretary General's Global Strategy for Women's, Children's, and Adolescents' Health are a window of opportunity for improving the health and well-being of women, children, and adolescents in the United States and around the world. Realizing the full potential of this historic moment will require that we improve our ability to successfully implement life-saving and life-enhancing innovations, particularly in low-resource settings. Implementation science, a new and rapidly evolving field that addresses the "how-to" component of providing sustainable quality services at scale, can make an important contribution on this front. A synthesis of the implementation science evidence indicates that three interrelated factors are required for successful, sustainable outcomes at scale: 1) effective innovations, 2) effective implementation, and 3) enabling contexts. Implementation science addresses the interaction among these factors to help make innovations more usable, to build ongoing capacity to assure the effective implementation of these innovations, and to ensure enabling contexts to sustain their full and effective use in practice. Improving access to quality services will require transforming health care systems and, therefore, much of the focus of implementation science in global health is on improving the ability of health systems to serve as enabling contexts. The field of implementation science is inherently interdisciplinary and academe will need to respond by facilitating collaboration among scientists from relevant disciplines, including evaluation, improvement, and systems sciences. Platforms and programs to facilitate collaborations among researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and funders are likewise essential.

Achieving high-quality universal health coverage: a perspective from the National Health Service in England.

Governments across low-income and middle-income countries have pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030, which comes at a time where healthcare systems are subjected to multiple and persistent pressures, such as poor access to care services and insufficient medical supplies. While the political willingness to provide universal health coverage is a step into the right direction, the benefits of it will depend on the quality of healthcare services provided. In this analysis paper, we ask whether there are any lessons that could be learnt from the English National Health Service, a healthcare system that has been providing comprehensive and high-quality universal health coverage for over 70 years. The key areas identified relate to the development of a coherent strategy to improve quality, to boost public health as a measure to reduce disease burden, to adopt evidence-based priority setting methods that ensure efficient spending of financial resources, to introduce an independent way of inspecting and regulating providers, and to allow for task-shifting, specifically in regions where staff retention is low.

Evaluating the effect of integrated microfinance and health interventions: an updated review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Solutions delivered within firm sectoral boundaries are inadequate in achieving income security and better health for poor populations. Integrated microfinance and health interventions leverage networks of women to promote financial inclusion, build livelihoods, and safeguard against high cost illnesses. Our understanding of the effect of integrated interventions has been limited by variability in intervention, outcome, design, and methodological rigour. This systematic review synthesises the literature through 2015 to understand the effect of integrated microfinance and health programs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, EconLit, and Global Health databases and sourced bibliographies, identifying 964 articles exclusive of duplicates. Title, abstract, and full text review yielded 35 articles. Articles evaluated the effect of intentionally integrated microfinance and health programs on client outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence for each article. RESULTS: Most interventions combined microfinance with health education, which demonstrated positive effects on health knowledge and behaviours, though not health status. Among programs that integrated microfinance with other health components ( i.e. health micro-insurance, linkages to health providers, and access to health products), results were generally positive but mixed due to the smaller number and quality of studies. Interventions combining multiple health components in a given study demonstrated positive effects, though it was unclear which component was driving the effect. Most articles (57%) were moderate in quality. DISCUSSION: Integrated microfinance and health education programs were effective, though longer intervention periods are necessary to measure more complex pathways to health status. The effect of microfinance combined with other health components was less clear. Stronger randomized research designs with multiple study arms are required to improve evidence and disentangle the effects of multiple component microfinance and health interventions. Few studies attempted to understand changes in economic outcomes, limiting our understanding of the relationship between health and income effects.