A cross-sectional study comparing case scenarios and record review to measure quality of Integrated Community Case Management care in western Uganda.

BACKGROUND: In Integrated Community Case Management (iCCM), village health workers (VHW) assess and treat malaria, pneumonia and diarrhea using a clinical algorithm. Study objectives included: 1) Compare VHWs' performance on case scenario exercises to record review data; 2) assess impact of formal education on performance in the case scenario exercises. METHODS: 36 VHWs in Bugoye Subcounty, Uganda completed the case scenarios exercise, which included video case scenarios and brief oral case vignettes, between July 2017 and February 2018. We obtained clinical records for all iCCM encounters in the same time period. RESULTS: In the video case scenarios, 45% of mock patients received all correct management steps (including all recommended education), while 94% received all critical management steps. Based on the level of data available from record review, 74% of patients in the record review dataset received overall correct management compared to 94% in the video case scenarios. In the case scenarios, VHWs with primary school education performed similarly to those with some or all secondary school education. CONCLUSIONS: The case scenarios produced higher estimates of quality of care than record review. VHWs often omitted recommended health education topics in the case scenarios. Level of formal education did not appear to influence performance in the case scenarios.

Assessing Village Health Workers' Ability to Perform and Interpret Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Malaria 4 Years after Initial Training: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Village health workers (VHWs) in Bugoye subcounty, Uganda, provide integrated community case management (iCCM) care to children younger than 5 years for malaria, pneumonia, and diarrhea. We assessed the longevity of VHWs' skills in performing and reading malaria rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) 4 years after initial training, comparing VHWs who had completed initial iCCM training 1 year before the study with VHWs who had completed training 4 years before the study. Both groups received quarterly refresher trainings. Trained interviewers observed 36 VHWs reading six mock RDTs each and performing an RDT as part of a larger skills assessment exercise. VHWs read 97% of mock RDTs correctly; of the 36 VHWs, 86% read all six mock RDTs correctly. Most VHWs scored either 12/13 or 13/13 on the RDT checklist (39% and 36%, respectively), with 25% scoring 11/13 or lower. For reading mock RDTs, VHWs in the first group (initial training 4 years before study) read 97% of mock RDTs correctly, whereas those in the second group (initial training 1 year before study) read 96% of mock RDTs correctly; the first group had a mean of 5.83 RDTs read correctly, compared with 5.77 RDTs read correctly in the second group (P = 0.83). For performing an RDT, the first group completed a mean of 12.0 steps correctly, compared with a mean of 12.2 correct steps in the second group (P = 0.60). Overall, VHWs demonstrated proficiency in reading RDTs accurately and performing RDTs according to protocol at least 4 years after initial iCCM training.