Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opportunities for Strengthening Quality of HealthCare in Results-Based Financing Programs
The best of clinical pathway redesign - practical examples of delivering bene...NHS Improvement
The examples here showcase just some of the innovations that have enabled thousands of patients to enjoy better health and well-being thanks to practicalservice improvements implemented on various clinical pathways
The best of clinical pathway redesign - practical examples of delivering bene...NHS Improvement
The examples here showcase just some of the innovations that have enabled thousands of patients to enjoy better health and well-being thanks to practicalservice improvements implemented on various clinical pathways
Nursing Audit Dr. Rangappa. S .Ashi SDM Institute of Nursing sciences Shri D...rangappa
Nursing audit one of the control tools, responsible for controlling the activities of the nurses that focuses on providing the best possible nursing care. The actual nursing rendered is compared with the standards. This is mainly refers to clinical nursing audit. The nursing management audit is an evaluation of nursing management as a whole. It is critically examination of the entire nursing management process.
Nursing audit, a tool for providing quality care to patientsGure2
it is a presentation that highlights what makes nursing audit a tool for quality care to patients. it further highlight the challenges and its prospects
Standard of care / Standard of Practice / Clinical Guideline/ Clinical Pathway Naz Usmani
A very brief presentation about the clinical process improvements including practices, standards of care , guideline and pathway . I have reflected upon the basic differences between them . Hope it is useful
Hospitals in India have a high burden of infection in their Intensive Care Unit and general wards,many of which are resistant to antibiotic treatment.In antibiotic resistant infections are difficult and sometimes impossible to treat.They lead to longer hospital stays,increased treatment cost and in some cases death.
This course deals with the basic concepts, principles and dimensions of quality health care, patient safety, quality standards for Health Provider Organizations and implementing a quality improvement program in the health care system. It provides students with an introduction to quality improvement science in a health care setting. The course challenges students to think in an interdisciplinary manner when problem solving for quality improvement and will provide students with models and tools for leading quality improvement initiatives in a variety of organizational settings.
Nursing Audit Dr. Rangappa. S .Ashi SDM Institute of Nursing sciences Shri D...rangappa
Nursing audit one of the control tools, responsible for controlling the activities of the nurses that focuses on providing the best possible nursing care. The actual nursing rendered is compared with the standards. This is mainly refers to clinical nursing audit. The nursing management audit is an evaluation of nursing management as a whole. It is critically examination of the entire nursing management process.
Nursing audit, a tool for providing quality care to patientsGure2
it is a presentation that highlights what makes nursing audit a tool for quality care to patients. it further highlight the challenges and its prospects
Standard of care / Standard of Practice / Clinical Guideline/ Clinical Pathway Naz Usmani
A very brief presentation about the clinical process improvements including practices, standards of care , guideline and pathway . I have reflected upon the basic differences between them . Hope it is useful
Hospitals in India have a high burden of infection in their Intensive Care Unit and general wards,many of which are resistant to antibiotic treatment.In antibiotic resistant infections are difficult and sometimes impossible to treat.They lead to longer hospital stays,increased treatment cost and in some cases death.
This course deals with the basic concepts, principles and dimensions of quality health care, patient safety, quality standards for Health Provider Organizations and implementing a quality improvement program in the health care system. It provides students with an introduction to quality improvement science in a health care setting. The course challenges students to think in an interdisciplinary manner when problem solving for quality improvement and will provide students with models and tools for leading quality improvement initiatives in a variety of organizational settings.
From Knowledge to health: the implementation of the National Service framewor...
Similar to Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opportunities for Strengthening Quality of HealthCare in Results-Based Financing Programs
HS410 Unit 6 Quality Management - DiscussionDiscussionThi.docxAlysonDuongtw
HS410 Unit 6: Quality Management - Discussion
Discussion
This is a graded Discussion
. Please refer to the Discussion Board Grading Rubric in Course Home / Grading Rubrics.
Respond to all of the following questions and be sure to respond to two of your other classmates’ postings:
1.
What are the steps in the quality improvement model and how is benchmarking involved?
2. What are the stages in which data quality errors found in a health record most commonly occur?
3. What is the definition of risk management?
4. What are the parts of an effective risk management program?
5. What is utilization review and why is it important in healthcare?
6. What is the process of utilization review?
Please paper should be 400-500 words and in an essay format, strictly on topic, original with real scholar references to support your answers.
NO PHARGIARISM PLEASE!
This is the Chapter reading for this assignment:
Read Chapter 7 in
Today’s Health Information Management
.
INTRODUCTION
Quality health care “means doing the right thing at the right time, in the right way, for the right person, and getting the best possible results.”1 The term quality, by definition, can mean excellence, status, or grade; thus, it can be measured and quantified. The patient, and perhaps the patient's family, may interpret quality health care differently from the way that health care providers interpret it. Therefore, it is important to determine—if possible—what is “right” and what is “wrong” with regard to quality health care. The study and analysis of health care are important to maintain a level of quality that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As a result of the current focus on patient safety, and in an attempt to reduce deaths and complications, providing the best quality health care while maintaining cost controls has become a challenge to all involved. Current quality initiatives are multifaceted and include government-directed, private sectorsupported, and consumer-driven projects.
This chapter explores the historical development of health care quality including a review of the important pioneers and the tools they developed. Their work has been studied, refined, and widely used in a variety of applications related to performance-improvement activities. Risk management is discussed, with emphasis on the importance of coordination with quality activities. The evolution of utilization management is also reviewed, with a focus on its relationship to quality management.
In addition, this chapter explores current trends in data collection and storage, and their application to improvements in quality care and patient safety. Current events are identified that influence and provide direction to legislative support and funding. This chapter also provides multiple tips and tools for both personal and institutional use.
DATA QUALITY
Data quality refers to the high grade, superiority, or excellence of data. Data quality is intertwined with the concept of.
Clinical Assignment Quality Improvement Final Project GoalWilheminaRossi174
Clinical Assignment: Quality Improvement Final Project
Goal:
· Combine your Quality Improvement Project Part 1 through Part 3 and finalize the Quality Improvement Project.
· Compose a conclusion for your Quality Improvement Project.
Content Requirements:
1. A description of the clinical issue to be addressed in the project.
2. An assessment of clinical issue that is the focus of the quality improvement project.
3. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis for the project. Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to the quality improvement process.
4. An outline of the action plan for the project.
5. Discuss stakeholders and decision makers who need to be involved in the quality improvement project.
6. Discuss resources including budget, personnel and time needed for the quality improvement project.
7. Discuss potential strategies for implementation and evaluation.
8. Conclusion
Submission Instructions:
· Refine your Quality Improvement Project Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 based on your instructor's feedback.
· The paper is to be clear and concise, and students will lose points for improper grammar, punctuation and misspelling.
· The final project is to be 8 - 12 pages in length and formatted per current APA, excluding the title, abstract and references page.
· Incorporate a minimum of 12 current (published within the last five years) scholarly journal articles or primary legal sources (statutes, court opinions) within your work.
· Journal articles and books should be referenced according to the current APA style (the library has a copy of the APA Manual).
Running Head: QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 3
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Part 3
June 20, 2021
Quality Improvement Project
Action Plan
Outline
-Defining the scope of the recruitment work plan, nursing residency enhancement, and career development projects.
-Allocation of responsibilities to stakeholders of the project departments.
-Estimate and create workable timelines and activities for each team.
-Note down the budget for the project.
The project involves an action plan to ensure quality improvement in the nursing profession. It is based on the fact that there is a significant shortage of nursing practitioners, which directly affects their quality of service. The action plan itself involves defining the nature of the recruitment work plan, which will be in connection to the newly graduated nurses with no experience and using their feedback on the job to determine if they will retain them. The work plan will involve questionnaire interviews, group sessions, and one-on-one interviews about the state of the job as the nurse continues.
The action plan will also include research on the state of nursing residency facilities at different medical institutions and later crafting proposals to the medical center and the government department involved in their nursing residency facilities with recommendations. Th ...
1INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS2 1 Aggression and Violence.docxfelicidaddinwoodie
1
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
2
1: Aggression and Violence
Aggression is, “an act or behavior that intentionally hurts another person, either physically or psychologically” (Matsumoto & Juang, 2008, p. 389). While some expressions of aggression are universal, cross-cultural differences exist in the type and level of aggression that are considered to be legally or socially sanctioned. There have been multiple reasons proposed by theorists to explain these cultural differences in the type (verbal, physical, etc.) and level of aggression expressed across cultures.
For this Discussion,review this week’s Learning Resources. Select a culture and consider how this culture expresses aggression.
With these thoughts in mind:
a brief description of the culture you selected. Provide an example of a behavior that may be perceived as aggressive by culture you selected and explain why. Then, provide an example of a behavior that may be perceived as aggressive across most cultures and explain why. Finally explain how socially sanctioned violence is acceptable within certain cultures. Support your responses using the Learning Resources and the current literature.
.
Reference:
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2008). Culture and psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
2: Attribution
“Not only do people bolster beliefs in their ability to control in response to successful control of an event but also they hold an unwarranted belief that they can control chance events,” states Yamaguchi (Matsumoto (Ed.), 2001, pp. 226–227) in the course text. While members of all cultures have the goal of protecting self-image following failures, differences exist among cultures in terms of the attributions made for the failure and success of a task. Thus, while the self-serving bias is universally applied, the specific attributions made differ cross-culturally. In some cultures, it is assumed that failure is attributable to situational factors while others assume dispositional factors.
Differences also exist in how the failure or success of another individual is attributed. Consider the relevance of attributions for success and failure for the scholar-practitioner working in a multicultural environment or in a global company. How would knowledge of how individuals’ attribute their own or others failure impact a team, classroom, or organization?
For this Discussion, imagine that a group of business people from two different cultures (one from a collectivistic culture and another from an individualistic culture) work together on a business project, and at the end, the project fails. Consider how people from individualistic and collectivistic cultures respond to failure and the factors to which they would most likely attribute their failures.
With these thoughts in mind:
a brief comparison of the similarities and differences of attribution styles in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Then provide an example of a group situation in which a proj ...
ITS IMPORTANT TO MEET THE COMPETENCES (Thats how they evaluate the mariuse18nolet
ITS IMPORTANT TO MEET THE COMPETENCES (That's how they evaluate the work).
Nursing within an organization is a critical component of health care delivery and is an essential ingredient in patient outcomes (Kelly & Tazbir, 2014). The concern for quality care that flows from evidence-based practice generates a desired outcome. Without these factors, a nurse cannot be an effective leader. It is important to lead not only from this position but from knowledge and expertise.
By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:
Competency 2: Explain the accountability of the nurse leader for decisions that affect health care delivery and patient outcomes.
(IMPORTANT) -Describe accountability tools and procedures used to measure effectiveness.
Competency 3: Apply management strategies and best practices for health care finance, human resources, and materials allocation decisions to improve health care delivery and patient outcomes.
(IMPORTANT) -Develop an evidence-based plan for health care delivery.
Competency 4: Apply professional standards of moral, ethical, and legal conduct in professional practice.
(IMPORTANT) -Apply professional and legal standards in support of a care plan.
Competency 5: Communicate in manner that is consistent with the expectations of a nursing professional.
(IMPORTANT) -Write content clearly and logically, with correct use of grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and current APA style.
Preparation
Refer to the Capella library and the Internet for supplemental resources to help you complete this assessment.
Instructions
Deliverable:
Develop an evidence-based plan for health care delivery.
Scenario:
The hospital where you work has an issue with increased readmissions within 30 days of discharge. After examining the core measures, it was found that heart failure was the most common core measure disease process experiencing the highest rate of readmissions. The leadership team has given your team the charge of developing a nurse-run outpatient heart failure clinic. The purpose of this clinic is to ensure that discharge education is presented to the patient in an orderly, consistent manner and complies with evidence-based practice protocols. Since these patients may be discharged from a variety of areas in the facility, having the heart failure clinic staff take ownership of the process will improve both consistency and compliance. There are cardiologists that interact with the staff and patients, but the day-to-day operations of the clinic are designed and supported by the nurses as they interact with appropriate members of the other health care team disciplines promoting the best care for the heart failure patients.
As a member of the nurse team, you have been asked to develop
one
component
of the clinic.
The hospital leadership established these objectives ...
This report is written for the Board of Directors of the Nazarene Community Health Clinic (NCHC). It outlines the importance and necessity of quality management as it pertains to the health care reform’s mandate that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care.
Similar to Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opportunities for Strengthening Quality of HealthCare in Results-Based Financing Programs (20)
Setting a Path for Improved Health Outcomes RBFRBFHealth
Learning is a critical part of the HRITF RBF portfolio, with all programs benefiting from an embedded impact evaluation and in some cases, complemented by qualitative research components such as process evaluation studies. The presentation discusses the following topics:
1. Using RBF at the community-level to address demand side barriers
This presentation elaborates on the early evidence and the rationale for using RBF at the community level. It will share lessons learned from the implementation of community RBF at country level.
2. Using RBF to Strengthen Quality of Care: Early Lessons
This presentation discusses the broader policy implications of using RBF to strengthen the quality of care. It will explore how Measuring and Paying for the Quality of Care has been operationalized and will highlight the experience of Nigeria. Lastly, it will focus on measuring and Analyzing the Quality of Care from the Impact Evaluation perspective.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of RBF in Zimbabwe and ZambiaRBFHealth
Profs. Shepard and Zeng have been leading projects for the Bank to develop methods for performing a cost-effectiveness analysis of Results-Based Financing (RBF) programs and applying them to maternal-child health (MCH) services in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Both countries’ RBF programs proved highly cost-effective. Methods and results should be informative to other RBF and MCH programs.
Evaluation of the Rwanda Community Performance-Based Financing ProgramRBFHealth
This study evaluates the impact of two interventions introduced as part of the Rwanda Community Performance-Based Financing Program to increase coverage of targeted maternal and child health services: rewards to cooperatives of community health workers and demand-side conditional in-kind transfers. The evaluation exploits experimental design with intervention randomly assigned at the sub-district level for a duration of two and a half years. The analysis finds no impact of the incentives to cooperatives of community health workers. However, conditional in-kind demand-side incentives are shown to significantly increase take up of timely antenatal and postnatal consultations.
Zambia’s Results-Based Financing pilot project began in April 2012 in 11 rural districts, representing nine provinces out of a total of ten, 204 health facilities, and a total catchment population of nearly 1.7 million. The Zambian RBF model is one of the very few examples of “contracting in” with a view to build on and strengthen the existing public health system. The program was designed to help address various health system challenges including an insufficient and poorly motivated human-resource base; an erratic supply of essential medicines and medical supplies; limited autonomy in decision-making at decentralized levels of the health system; weak monitoring and evaluation systems; and poor quality of service delivery.
This presentation focuses on the results of the impact evaluation and provide an overview of some of the key messages and policy implications of the work.
Performance-based financing of maternal and child health: non-experimental ev...RBFHealth
Ellen Van de Poel presents the findings of two studies that evaluate the impact of Performance-Based Financing (PBF) in Burundi and Cambodia. Both studies exploit the geographic expansion of PBF to estimate its effect on the utilization of maternal and child health services using data from the Demographic Health Surveys.
Success beyond numbers: The Salud Mesoamerica Initiative’s results-based fin...RBFHealth
The Salud Mesoamérica Initiative (SMI) is a public-private partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Carlos Slim Foundation, the Government of Spain, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the countries of Central America and the State of Chiapas in Mexico. SMI works to reduce maternal and health inequalities through a results-based financing model, aligned with priorities established by the governments of the region. Among the poor in Mesoamerica, only 5 out of every 10 pregnant women are attended during childbirth by skilled birth personnel and the mortality rate among children in poverty is twice that of the national average.
Building agile and data-driven health system is a fundamental component of the Universal Health Coverage agenda. Data-driven health systems will require that countries set up smart data systems coupled with dynamic and reactive health financing instruments.
A large number of the low-income countries enhance their strategic purchasing function with the introduction of Results-Based Financing (RBF) instruments. In this presentation, Nicolas de Borman describes how the combination of DHIS2 platforms, RBF and mobile devices help build strategic purchasing function in health systems.
Sumar Program's Universal Coverage: Achievements & New Goals Towards 2020RBFHealth
A presentation by Martín Sabignoso of Argentina's Ministry of Health delivered at the RBF Health Seminar, QOn the Road to Effective Universal Health Coverage: What’s New in Argentina’s Use of Performance Incentives? on June 11, 2015.
Long run effects of temporary incentives on medical care productivity in Arge...RBFHealth
A presentation by Pablo Celhay, Paul Gertler, Paula Giovagnoli and Christel Vermeersch, delivered at the RBF Health Seminar, On the Road to Effective Universal Health Coverage: What’s New in Argentina’s Use of Performance Incentives? on June 11, 2015.
Qualitative Research in Results-Based Financing: The Promise and The RealityRBFHealth
A presentation by Kerina Kielmann and Fabian Cataldo, delivered at the RBF Health Seminar, Qualitative Research in RBF: The Promise and The Reality on February 18, 2015.
Effect of Voucher Programs on Utilization, Out-of-Pocket Expenditure and Qual...RBFHealth
A presentation by Timothy Abuya, delivered at the RBF Health Seminar, The Role of Vouchers in Serving Disadvantaged Populations and Improving Quality of Care.
A presentation by Ben Bellows, delivered at the RBF Health Seminar, The Role of Vouchers in Serving Disadvantaged Populations and Improving Quality of Care.
WHO Implementation Research Program on Factors Explaining Success and Failure...RBFHealth
A presentation by Maryam Bigdeli, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
The Science of Delivery: Use of Administrative Data in The HRITF PortfolioRBFHealth
A presentation by Ha Thi Hong Nguyen, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
PBF Conceptual Framework and Illustration with The Case of NigeriaRBFHealth
A presentation by Dinesh Nair, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
Zimbabwe: Results-Based Financing Improves Coverage, Quality and Financial Pr...RBFHealth
A presentation by Dr. Gwinji, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health, Zimbabwe and Dr. Tafadzwa Goverwa- Sibanda, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
India - Karnataka: An Experimental Evaluation of Government Health Insurance ...RBFHealth
A presentation by Somil Nagpal, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
What Are Results-Based Financing Programs Doing Around The World, State of Th...RBFHealth
A presentation by Dinesh Nair, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014. This event was hosted by the Health Results Innovation Trust Fund at The World Bank, in partnership with the PBF Community of Practice in Africa.
A presentation by Bruno Meessen, delivered during "Transforming Health Systems Through Results-Based Financing," an event held during the Third Global Symposium on Health Systems Research in Cape Town on September 30, 2014.
Providing Health in Difficult Contexts: Pre-Pilot Performance-Based Financing...RBFHealth
A presentation delivered during the RBF Health Seminar,
"Providing Health in Difficult Contexts: Pre-pilot Performance-Based Financing Experiences in Adamawa State in North-East Nigeria" on April 24, 2014. It highlights the experiences from the Adamawa Performance-based financing (PBF) Pilot, the challenges faced, the early results and how the pilot is leading the way for improved coordination and sustainable health system changes.
Explore our infographic on 'Essential Metrics for Palliative Care Management' which highlights key performance indicators crucial for enhancing the quality and efficiency of palliative care services.
This visual guide breaks down important metrics across four categories: Patient-Centered Metrics, Care Efficiency Metrics, Quality of Life Metrics, and Staff Metrics. Each section is designed to help healthcare professionals monitor and improve care delivery for patients facing serious illnesses. Understand how to implement these metrics in your palliative care practices for better outcomes and higher satisfaction levels.
Health Education on prevention of hypertensionRadhika kulvi
Hypertension is a chronic condition of concern due to its role in the causation of coronary heart diseases. Hypertension is a worldwide epidemic and important risk factor for coronary artery disease, stroke and renal diseases. Blood pressure is the force exerted by the blood against the walls of the blood vessels and is sufficient to maintain tissue perfusion during activity and rest. Hypertension is sustained elevation of BP. In adults, HTN exists when systolic blood pressure is equal to or greater than 140mmHg or diastolic BP is equal to or greater than 90mmHg. The
One of the most developed cities of India, the city of Chennai is the capital of Tamilnadu and many people from different parts of India come here to earn their bread and butter. Being a metropolitan, the city is filled with towering building and beaches but the sad part as with almost every Indian city
The dimensions of healthcare quality refer to various attributes or aspects that define the standard of healthcare services. These dimensions are used to evaluate, measure, and improve the quality of care provided to patients. A comprehensive understanding of these dimensions ensures that healthcare systems can address various aspects of patient care effectively and holistically. Dimensions of Healthcare Quality and Performance of care include the following; Appropriateness, Availability, Competence, Continuity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Efficacy, Prevention, Respect and Care, Safety as well as Timeliness.
Antibiotic Stewardship by Anushri Srivastava.pptxAnushriSrivastav
Stewardship is the act of taking good care of something.
Antimicrobial stewardship is a coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antimicrobials (including antibiotics), improves patient outcomes, reduces microbial resistance, and decreases the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
WHO launched the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) in 2015 to fill knowledge gaps and inform strategies at all levels.
ACCORDING TO apic.org,
Antimicrobial stewardship is a coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antimicrobials (including antibiotics), improves patient outcomes, reduces microbial resistance, and decreases the spread of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms.
ACCORDING TO pewtrusts.org,
Antibiotic stewardship refers to efforts in doctors’ offices, hospitals, long term care facilities, and other health care settings to ensure that antibiotics are used only when necessary and appropriate
According to WHO,
Antimicrobial stewardship is a systematic approach to educate and support health care professionals to follow evidence-based guidelines for prescribing and administering antimicrobials
In 1996, John McGowan and Dale Gerding first applied the term antimicrobial stewardship, where they suggested a causal association between antimicrobial agent use and resistance. They also focused on the urgency of large-scale controlled trials of antimicrobial-use regulation employing sophisticated epidemiologic methods, molecular typing, and precise resistance mechanism analysis.
Antimicrobial Stewardship(AMS) refers to the optimal selection, dosing, and duration of antimicrobial treatment resulting in the best clinical outcome with minimal side effects to the patients and minimal impact on subsequent resistance.
According to the 2019 report, in the US, more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur each year, and more than 35000 people die. In addition to this, it also mentioned that 223,900 cases of Clostridoides difficile occurred in 2017, of which 12800 people died. The report did not include viruses or parasites
VISION
Being proactive
Supporting optimal animal and human health
Exploring ways to reduce overall use of antimicrobials
Using the drugs that prevent and treat disease by killing microscopic organisms in a responsible way
GOAL
to prevent the generation and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Doing so will preserve the effectiveness of these drugs in animals and humans for years to come.
being to preserve human and animal health and the effectiveness of antimicrobial medications.
to implement a multidisciplinary approach in assembling a stewardship team to include an infectious disease physician, a clinical pharmacist with infectious diseases training, infection preventionist, and a close collaboration with the staff in the clinical microbiology laboratory
to prevent antimicrobial overuse, misuse and abuse.
to minimize the developme
CHAPTER 1 SEMESTER V PREVENTIVE-PEDIATRICS.pdfSachin Sharma
This content provides an overview of preventive pediatrics. It defines preventive pediatrics as preventing disease and promoting children's physical, mental, and social well-being to achieve positive health. It discusses antenatal, postnatal, and social preventive pediatrics. It also covers various child health programs like immunization, breastfeeding, ICDS, and the roles of organizations like WHO, UNICEF, and nurses in preventive pediatrics.
Navigating Challenges: Mental Health, Legislation, and the Prison System in B...Guillermo Rivera
This conference will delve into the intricate intersections between mental health, legal frameworks, and the prison system in Bolivia. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current challenges faced by mental health professionals working within the legislative and correctional landscapes. Topics of discussion will include the prevalence and impact of mental health issues among the incarcerated population, the effectiveness of existing mental health policies and legislation, and potential reforms to enhance the mental health support system within prisons.
India Clinical Trials Market: Industry Size and Growth Trends [2030] Analyzed...Kumar Satyam
According to TechSci Research report, "India Clinical Trials Market- By Region, Competition, Forecast & Opportunities, 2030F," the India Clinical Trials Market was valued at USD 2.05 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.64% through 2030. The market is driven by a variety of factors, making India an attractive destination for pharmaceutical companies and researchers. India's vast and diverse patient population, cost-effective operational environment, and a large pool of skilled medical professionals contribute significantly to the market's growth. Additionally, increasing government support in streamlining regulations and the growing prevalence of lifestyle diseases further propel the clinical trials market.
Growing Prevalence of Lifestyle Diseases
The rising incidence of lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer is a major trend driving the clinical trials market in India. These conditions necessitate the development and testing of new treatment methods, creating a robust demand for clinical trials. The increasing burden of these diseases highlights the need for innovative therapies and underscores the importance of India as a key player in global clinical research.
Global launch of the Healthy Ageing and Prevention Index 2nd wave – alongside...ILC- UK
The Healthy Ageing and Prevention Index is an online tool created by ILC that ranks countries on six metrics including, life span, health span, work span, income, environmental performance, and happiness. The Index helps us understand how well countries have adapted to longevity and inform decision makers on what must be done to maximise the economic benefits that comes with living well for longer.
Alongside the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva on 28 May 2024, we launched the second version of our Index, allowing us to track progress and give new insights into what needs to be done to keep populations healthier for longer.
The speakers included:
Professor Orazio Schillaci, Minister of Health, Italy
Dr Hans Groth, Chairman of the Board, World Demographic & Ageing Forum
Professor Ilona Kickbusch, Founder and Chair, Global Health Centre, Geneva Graduate Institute and co-chair, World Health Summit Council
Dr Natasha Azzopardi Muscat, Director, Country Health Policies and Systems Division, World Health Organisation EURO
Dr Marta Lomazzi, Executive Manager, World Federation of Public Health Associations
Dr Shyam Bishen, Head, Centre for Health and Healthcare and Member of the Executive Committee, World Economic Forum
Dr Karin Tegmark Wisell, Director General, Public Health Agency of Sweden
ICH Guidelines for Pharmacovigilance.pdfNEHA GUPTA
The "ICH Guidelines for Pharmacovigilance" PDF provides a comprehensive overview of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) guidelines related to pharmacovigilance. These guidelines aim to ensure that drugs are safe and effective for patients by monitoring and assessing adverse effects, ensuring proper reporting systems, and improving risk management practices. The document is essential for professionals in the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory authorities, and healthcare providers, offering detailed procedures and standards for pharmacovigilance activities to enhance drug safety and protect public health.
Annual Results and Impact Evaluation Workshop for RBF - Day One - Paper - Opportunities for Strengthening Quality of HealthCare in Results-Based Financing Programs
1. 1
Opportunities for Strengthening Quality of Health Care
in Results-based Financing Programs
March 8th 2014
Kathleen Hill, M.D.
Consultant to the World Bank
2. 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................3
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................4
Quality Dimensions and Improvement Principles…………………………………………………………………………………..5
Measuring Quality of Care…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
Incentivizing Quality in RBF Programs……………………………………………………………………………………………….12
Aligning RBF programs with Improvement and Health System Strengthening Efforts………………………..14
Promising Directions for Strengthening Quality of Care in RBF Programs…………………………………………..15
References………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
3. 3
Executive Summary
This background paper examines current directions and opportunities to improve quality of care in the
context of World Bank supported results-based financing (RBF) programs. Common quality of care gaps
in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are reviewed ranging from a lack of essential commodities
to poor adherence with evidence-based standards to lack of improvement capacity in most health
systems. Six dimensions of quality are reviewed including care that is safe (does no harm), care that is
effective (adherent with guidelines), efficient (not wasteful), timely, patient-centered and equitable.
Core principles of quality improvement are described including effective teamwork, understanding how
processes of care function within a health system, use of data to track results, and an understanding and
focus on patient needs. While there is no single best method to improve quality, several approaches for
improving quality of care are discussed including the model for improvement and audit and feedback.
Opportunities and challenges for measuring quality of care in LMICs are explored in depth due to the
importance of quality measures for RBF programs that incentivize quality performance measures. The
paper explores advantages and disadvantages for a range of specific measurement methods including
observation, simulation, record audit, provider questionnaire and patient interviews. Feasibility of
specific measurement methods is explored within the context of common health information
constraints encountered in LMICs (e.g. non-standardized patient charts, missing data, etc.) The paper
explores differences between measuring quality for the purpose of routine monitoring (e.g. quarterly
performance results for payment) versus periodic measurement of quality for the purpose of external
verification versus measurement for the purpose of an external assessment (e.g. evaluation). The paper
notes the wider range of measurement methods that are typically feasible in a one-time assessment of
quality (versus routine monitoring) and notes the common challenge of overcoming discrepancies
between results generated through routine supervision and results generated through external
verification by an independent auditor.
The section on measurement reviews the construction of reliable quality measures in which a
numerator, a denominator, and a measurement method (data source, sample size, frequency of
measurement) are clearly defined at the outset. The structure of common quality of care process
measures is reviewed (e.g. % adherence with minimum best practices; % cases meeting minimum
standard). The paper briefly reviews integration of quality of care measures into established
structurally-oriented checklists. Examples of checklists from World Bank supported RBF programs
incorporating maternal and newborn care quality performance measures for hospitals and clinics are
provided in an appendix.
There are a number of ways in which RBF programs may seek to incentivize better quality of care,
including: (1) incentives for quality performance measures; 2) incentives for quality improvement
activities; and 3) alignment of RBF programs with broader health system strengthening and quality
improvement efforts. The distinct incentive approaches are discussed including the process of
prioritizing specific conditions and services to incentivize (including potential phasing of priority
conditions/services) and the construction of quality performance measures related to prioritized health
4. 4
conditions and services (e.g. incentivizing high-impact intervention “bundles”). Illustrative quality
improvement activities that may be incentivized are discussed including maintenance of provider
certification, continuous quality improvement by facility QI teams (setting aims, testing changes,
tracking results), peer to peer evaluation and structured death audits. Approaches to aligning or
designing RBF programs linked to broader quality improvement and health system strengthening efforts
such as national QI strategies, accreditation and workforce efforts are discussed including an example of
a World Bank supported RBF program in Liberia being implemented in hospitals in parallel with a
provider residency training program and a World Bank supported RBF program in Zimbabwe being
implemented in hospitals and clinics in parallel with the roll out of a national QI strategy (Zimbabwe).
Finally, promising directions for continuing to strengthen quality of care in RBF programs are explored at
the level of country-specific directions and cross-country directions linked to an explicit learning and
knowledge management agenda.
Introduction
Poor quality of health care is widely recognized as a major barrier to achieving optimal health outcomes
and strong economies in low, middle and high-income settings. Despite a plethora of guidelines based
on proven best practices, health care services world-wide often fail to deliver evidence-based care to
patients when and where they need such care. Studies of care delivery in LMIC demonstrate
widespread deficiencies in the care provided to patients. Many factors contribute to poor quality of care
and weak health systems including:
Governance and policy: Inconsistent national policies, standards, leadership and accountability
mechanisms
Financing: lack of financing for priority services, workforce and essential inputs
Essential commodities: lack of functional supplies at the point of service delivery
Provider competence: weak knowledge and skills and poor maintenance of provider
competence after training
Organization of care processes: poor organization of care processes and poor adherence with
evidence-based standards.
Health information systems: lack of routine quality of care data collection and analysis of data
to improve services
Improvement capacity within health system: lack of improvement capacity throughout health
system.
Results based financing programs seek to address many of the above deficits through combinations of
incentives that may target commodities and basic infrastructure, adherence with best practices (clinical
quality measures), timeliness and coordination of care (organization of care processes, referrals), and
sometimes improvement activities. Due to strong emphasis on data and continuous monitoring and
verification of performance measures, RBF programs contribute to the strengthening of health
information systems.
5. 5
Quality Dimensions and Improvement Principles
In 2001 the Institute of Medicine published a seminal report, Crossing the Quality Chasm, highlighting
the chasm between the “the health care we could have and the care that we have” in the U.S. (Institute
of Medicine, 2001.) The report emphasized the fact that “problems come from poor systems—not bad
people” and that efforts to improve care must be anchored in a consideration of how systems of care
operate in real-life complex delivery systems.
The Institute of Medicine report highlighted six primary aims of quality care including:
1. Safe: Care should be as safe for patients (do no harm)
2. Effective: The science and evidence behind health care should be applied and serve as the standard in the
delivery of care (adherence with evidenced-based standards)
3. Efficient: Care and service should be cost effective, and waste should be removed from the system
4. Timely: Patients should experience no waits or delays in receiving care and service
5. Patient centered: The system of care should revolve around the patient, respect patient preferences, and
put the patient in control
6. Equitable: Unequal treatment should be a fact of the past; disparities in care should be eradicated.
There are several useful conceptual models of quality of care. One model developed by Donabedian
that continues to be widely used proposes three main categories from which information about
quality of care can be drawn (see Figure 1): 1) Structure, 2) Process and 3) Outcomes. Structure
describes the context in which care is delivered, including infrastructure, staff, financing and
equipment. Process denotes the actions that make up health care as reflected in the transactions
between patients and providers and staff throughout the delivery of health care. Processes can be
further classified as technical processes (how care is delivered) or interpersonal processes (the
manner in which care is delivered). Outcomes refer to the effects of health care on the status of
patients and populations and are considered to be a result of inputs and processes of care.
Figure 1: Conceptualizing Quality of Health Care: Inputs, processes and Outcomes
(Source: Donabedian 2005)
1. What is done
2. How it is done
Health services
delivered
Change in
health behavior
Change in
health status
Patient Satisfaction
People
Infrastructure
Materials
(i.e. vaccine)
Information
Technology
Resources
(Inputs)
Activities
(Processes)
Results
(Outputs or Outcomes)
6. 6
One approach to improving health care widely used in high-resource settings is the model for
improvement (Figure 3). The model for Improvement is a change management strategy that stems
from the work of William Edwards Deming. The model includes three basic questions to help structure
improvement:
1. What are we trying to accomplish?
2. How will we know that a change is an improvement?
3. What changes can we make that will result in improvement?
Figure 3: Model for Improvement
A key tenet of improvement is that making care better always requires change, although not all change
necessarily leads to improvement. Without “change” every system will continue to produce the same
results it has always produced. Or, in other words, “every system is perfectly designed to get the results it
gets” (Paul Batalden.) Managing change is central to improvement efforts whether or not such efforts
are prospective (e.g. defining aims and proactively testing changes to processes of care to try to reach
the aim) or retrospective (e.g. auditing and examining adverse events to identify and correct root
problems contributing to poor quality).
The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle demonstrated in Figure 3 is one approach to managing change; the
PDSA cycle guides tests of change by health care teams to determine if a change leads to improvement.
Teams new to improvement benefit from supportive supervision (coaching) to identify and test changes
7. 7
to processes of care to improve adherence with best practices. Ideally, supportive supervision of QI
teams includes integrated clinical, QI and data-management capacity-building over time. Improvement
teams are typically made up of managers, front-line health care workers and staff who possess the
necessary deep knowledge of their local systems to be able to identify and test feasible and sustainable
changes to “usual processes” to improve care in their local setting.
While context has a strong influence on which changes may be most feasible and effective for
overcoming gaps in a specific setting, categories of quality and system gaps and effective changes
(solutions) are often common across settings. Diverse settings can learn from each other to overcome
common quality and system gaps. Increasingly, many improvement approaches mobilize teams to work
together across health system levels and geographic sites to identify, test and share successful changes
for overcoming important quality and system gaps. Promoting regular shared learning among teams
helps to accelerate and scale up best practices for overcoming common barriers to delivery of high
quality of care.
Audit and feedback is a systematic review of care provided in relation to standards and guidelines of
care. Audit and feedback alone, without action to correct problems may not improve care but can
provide valuable insights into critical quality gaps in order to support change and solutions for
improvement. Audit of adverse events and near-miss audits allow teams to reflect upon, understand
and learn from rare, catastrophic (or near-catastrophic) events through peer review of cases that caused
concern, affected patient safety, or resulted in an unfortunate outcome. Clinical audits are systematic
reviews of patient charts to determine the care given in relation to the standard of care; they are done
by sites for monthly monitoring and conducted externally for data validation. Team-based and individual
self- assessments allow teams to assess themselves or each other through systematic chart reviews to
determine the quality of care. It allows for a sustainable internal system and is potentially cost-effective.
Measuring Quality of Care: Opportunities and Challenges
Regular measurement and analysis of quality measures is a core principle of all improvement work and
is a central component of RBF programs that incentivize quality performance measures. However,
measuring quality is not simple in any setting as highlighted by a quote from a recent issue of the
Journal of the American Medical Association:
“Quality measurement is in rapid flux….despite the challenges of a rapidly expanding number of quality
measures, much of health care remains poorly measured or unmeasured.” Journal of the American
Medical Association Nov 13. 2013
Measures of quality can encompass any of the quality dimensions discussed above, including timeliness
of care, coordination of care (e.g. referral/counter-referral), clinical effectiveness of care (adherence
with best practices), safety of care (adverse events), equity of care (same treatment for everyone),
8. 8
efficiency (not wasteful) and others. Often stakeholders think of clinical effectiveness (adherence with
best practices) when they hear the word “quality”.
It is useful to consider which stakeholders need which quality of care information and for what purpose.
For example facility staff may benefit from tracking quality of care process measures related to the
specific services they are providing. District and regional managers may benefit from tracking
performance of essential system functions at district level such as distribution of commodities and
workforce, functionality of referral systems, etc, in addition to tracking a few sentinel process of care
quality measures in the facilities they supervise. It may or may not make sense for a district health
supervisor to track all quality of care indicators being monitored by facility health care team. In some
cases, it may be preferable to incorporate a few sentinel measures of quality into routine information
systems so as not to burden HMIS with too many indicators. Clients may benefit from having access to
measures of client-centeredness in addition to other quality measures.
National policy makers may find it most useful to track primarily health outcome measures and a
few sentinel quality indicators. Global stakeholders who use data in large part for advocacy and
accountability purposes may need to track an even higher level of disease burden and health
outcome measures.
Measurement Methods
There are a many methods that can be used to measure quality of care. Table 1 illustrates common
methods of assessing quality, including advantages and disadvantages for specific methods. Individual
methods have unique strengths and weaknesses depending on the purpose and context of the
measurement exercise. It is important to tailor the method to the specific need, including the specific
quality dimension being measured. For example a patient interview may be the best method to assess
client-centeredness of care but may not be a reliable method to measure adherence with treatment
standards for a complex disease due to the knowledge asymmetry between provider and patient. Often
a combination of methods can yield a fuller picture of quality than any one single method.
Measurement methods feasible for use as part of a one-time assessment of quality of care (e.g. to
evaluate a program intervention) may be impractical for use for routine measurement of care in an RBF
program or health care improvement intervention.
Table 1: Common Methods of Measuring Quality of Health Care
Measurement Method Advantages Disadvantages
Observation -Considered “gold standard”
-Only method that measures performance of
health service (as opposed to provider
knowledge and competence which may not
-Hawthorne effect
-Resource intensive
-Difficult to sustain in
routine practice
9. 9
correlate with provider performance)
-May be best method for assessing highly
procedural health care tasks (e.g. surgery)
Patient Interview
(e.g. exit interview;
household interview)
-Client centeredness of care
-May be reliable for simple clinical measures
-Recall problems
-Knowledge asymmetry between
provider and patients
-Patient reluctance to give honest
feedback for fear of negative
consequences (e.g. facility exit
interviews)
Death & Near-miss Audit -Targets adverse outcomes
-May identify common quality deficits
-Accountability
-Retrospective (after the fact)
-Limited evidence for association
between routine audit and improved
outcomes
Simulation -Next best method after observation for
complex procedural tasks and processes (e.g.
emergency resuscitation)
-Resource intensive
-Unclear relationship between
simulated competence and actual
performance
Provider Questionnaire -Assesses provider knowledge, self-reported
practice and attitude
-Does not assess provider competence
or performance
( knowledge and problem solving (e.g.
vignettes)
Facility & Patient Records
Individual patient
record
Registers
Other facility
documents
-Relatively sustainable and low-cost
-May encourage better documentation and
point-of-care use of data for decision-making
-Records in LMICs often inadequate or
absent altogether (e.g. no
standardized individual patient record)
-Providers/supervisors may falsely
document data (intentionally or
unintentionally)
Routine information system -Efficient extraction of data -Most HMIS track few (if any) quality
of care measures.
Standardized individual patient records that capture patient-specific and clinical care data serve two
important functions: 1) support of real-time clinical decision-making at the point of care; 2) permit data
extraction for calculation, aggregation and analysis of quality measures across different units of the
system (e.g. provider-specific, facility-specific, district, national). Although the ideal, many health
systems in low resource settings are still far from having individual medical records, and instead use
10. 10
registers to track patient-specific information. Such registers are often no more than columns drawn
into a local notebook and may contain varying amounts of patient-specific clinical data depending on
the register. Never the less, such registers can be manually adapted to capture simple routine best
practices (e.g. addition of column for immediate post-partum oxytocin) while stronger patient records
and more robust information systems are being developed.
Defining Indicators of Quality
Clinical quality of measures can be constructed in varying ways depending on the specific technical
content, data source and measurement method and feasibility in an individual context. In most cases,
clinical quality of care process indicators measure the adherence of care with proven best practices (e.g.
evidence-based standards):
% cases adherent with standards – “all or nothing adherence” (e.g. % PPH cases managed per
minimum standard; % cases pediatric pneumonia treated per standard)
Average % adherence with minimum standards (e.g. average % adherence with newborn sepsis
case-management standards; N=30 cases reviewed)
It is very important to standardize operational definitions of quality of care indicators (performance
measures) that include at a minimum: 1) clear numerator; 2) denominator; 3) source of data; and 4)
frequency of data collection (see Table 2). The specific measurement method that is best suited to a
particular indicator depends on a range of factors, including feasible data sources, and must be
considered when constructing an indicator. For example, it is impossible to measure the quality of
the highly procedural resuscitation of a newborn using a chart audit method. Instead, periodic
observation of real care or simulated care using a structured checklist may be the most appropriate
measurement method.
Table 2: Illustrative Quality of Care Measures: Clinical Effectiveness of Care
Quality of Care Measure
Operational Definition
Data Source/Sample
(measurement method)
Frequency of
Data
CollectionNumerator Denominator
% births in last month
benefitting from Active
Management of the Third
Stage of labor for PPH
prevention
# births in last
month with
administration of
10 units of
oxytocin within
one minute of
delivery of fetus
and controlled
cord traction and
uterine massage.
Total number
births in last
month
Birth register OR
Partogram
(specify one)
Monthly
Average adherence # eclampsia case Total All eclampsia cases Monthly
11. 11
with eclampsia case-
management standards
management
standards met
pneumonia case
management
standards
in hospital perinatal
record in last month
Measuring Quality of Care in Real-life Settings: The Challenge
Measuring quality of care is difficult in any setting. However, routine measurement of quality is
especially challenging in low resource settings due to a range of factors including:
Relative absence of quality of care (content) measures in many routine HMIS in low-resource
settings
Absence of standardized individual patient records in many facilities
Lack of primary data to permit calculation of quality indicators (e.g. registers and individual
partograms/records lack essential data; records may not be standardized or if standardized
records may not include essential information.)
Multiple competing vertical registers in facilities, often containing duplicative data (e.g. TB
register; hypertension register)
Few routine indicators of performance of essential system functions (e.g. % maternities in
district with functional neonatal bag & mask at bedside.)
Inadequate data management skills among providers and managers.
Although measurement methods in addition to chart audit such as observation and client/provider
questionnaires may be useful for one-off periodic assessments, such methods are not typically
sustainable for routine measurement of quality in low resource settings. Routine measurement of
clinical quality may require a combination of measurement approaches, including adaptation of local
records and/or registers, periodic patient and provider interviews, and periodic observation of care.
Even when primary data is available in local records data is often inconsistent and of poor quality.
Building staff capacity to capture and extract data to calculate quality measures is central to building
capacity for continuous improvement in low resource settings and is a central component of all quality
improvement and RBF programs.
In general it is far easier to measure adherence with routine best practices relevant for every patient
than it is to measure adherence with more complex processes of care such as case management of
complications. For example, a routine best practice such as administration of Tetanus Toxoid during
antenatal care can be tracked fairly easily by checking a “box” in a standard record or register column. It
is considerably more difficult, however, to construct a simple and feasible measure of adherence with
eclampsia case-management standards across a necessary continuum of care including: 1) timely
accurate diagnosis; 2) stabilization and successful timely referral (primary facility); 3) prompt and
ongoing treatment/monitoring (hospital); 4) discharge planning and follow up (hospital).
The emergence of electronic health records and electronic health information systems in many
countries is increasing the efficiency of data management and holds great promise for standardizing and
improving measurement of quality of care. However, as is being learned in high-resource settings,
12. 12
electronic health records and registries are not without significant challenges. Unless EHRs are pro-
actively designed to be user-friendly and to capture and automatically aggregate quality of care data
and indicators, they will continue to face the same challenges as traditional paper records.
Incentivizing Quality in RBF Projects
Health systems in high-resource settings have incentivized quality of care performance measures for
many years. Many RBF schemes in high-resource settings incentivize a combination of clinical process
measures (e.g. adherence with diabetes care standards) and outcome measures (e.g. blood glucose
control in diabetes, hospital re-admission rates, post-operative death rates, etc.)
Increasingly, RBF programs in LMICs are beginning to incentivize quality-related performance measures
in addition to volume of services (e.g. number of deliveries) and structural measures (e.g. availability of
essential drugs). There are a number of ways in which RBF programs may seek to improve quality of
care, including: (1) incentives for quality performance measures; 2) incentives for quality improvement
activities; and 3) alignment of RBF programs with broader health system strengthening and quality
improvement efforts.
Incentivizing quality of care performance measures
As is the case for any program that seeks to improve quality of care, RBF programs must define which
quality of care measures to incentivize. In LMICs where quality of care deficits are significant across a
range of clinical conditions and service delivery types it can sometimes be challenging to know where to
start since it is clearly impossible to incentivize and measure everything at once.
In general, it is useful to consider the following factors, at a minimum, when deciding which clinical
conditions and service delivery types to prioritize:
Target high-burden conditions in country and local context responsible for the greatest burden
of disease in local context (leading causes of mortality and morbidity)
Target high-burden conditions for which there is strong evidence of effective health care
interventions (preventive and curative)
Align selection of priority conditions and services with government priorities; involve national
and local decision makers and experts in the decision about which areas to incentivize
When possible, consider phasing improvement priorities during RBF program implementation
since it is not possible to “improve everything at once”
Once an RBF program has defined a set of priority health conditions and services for which it seeks to
improve quality, then program managers need to engage local and international experts to examine
country standards and guidelines against global evidence since evidence is constantly changing. In
general, review of World Health Organization guidelines is a good starting point since such guidelines
are usually based on a systematic review of the evidence and are likely to be respected by country
13. 13
government experts. When possible, it is preferable to distill standards for priority conditions and
services into the minimum highest-impact “intervention bundles” most likely to yield the best outcomes,
to be understood by local providers, and to be measurable with relatively simple measurement
methods. When possible, it is best to avoid long lists of standards that are difficult to measure and
verify and difficult to understand among providers working in high-volume messy systems. For example,
an established RBF program seeking to incorporate a greater focus on quality can add a set of quality
indicators to the structural checklist.
A challenge faced by many structurally oriented RBF programs as they transition to include a greater
focus on quality is the need to revise the qualifications of supervisors and independent verifiers who
assess the quality performance measures. Regardless of the measurement method used (chart audit,
provider knowledge/case study, observation, etc) supervisors who assess performance on quality
measures and independent assessors who verify results must possess a minimum level of clinical
qualifications. As RBF programs incentivize more complex clinical processes such as hospital case
management of severe pneumonia the clinical qualifications of the supervisor/assessor becomes
increasingly important. Because many supervisors are primarily administrative managers who no longer
(or never did) practice clinical care it may sometimes be necessary to involve clinician experts in
assessing and verifying quality measures in RBF programs. Another challenge faced by many RBF
programs is a discrepancy between quality scores calculated by supervisors versus scores calculated by
independent assessors. This challenge is may be particularly difficult when complex process of care
performance measures is involved.
Incentivizing Quality Improvement and Health System Strengthening Activities
In addition to incentivizing quality of care performance measures, RBF programs can incentivize specific
improvement activities at the level of the individual provider, the facility, the regional or district health
management team, or other unit. Table 3 provides examples of improvement activities that may be
incentivized as part of RBF programs.
Table 3: Illustrative quality improvement activities that can be incentivized in RBF programs
Activity to Improve Care Description
Regular facility QI team meetings Regular facility QI team meeting (review of meeting notes and action plans)
Routine collection & analysis of
quality of care measures
Routine collection and analysis of priority quality measures by facility teams
and /or district health management teams
Continuous quality improvement Continuous improvement led by facility teams: clear measurable
improvement aims and indicators; regular tests of change and tracking of
results to determine if care is (or is not) improving
14. 14
Regular peer to peer evaluation Regular structured peer to peer review of medical records with feedback;
regular peer to peer structured observation of procedural tasks (e.g.
newborn resuscitation)
Provider professional development
and or certification
Incentives tied to minimal standards of professional development and/or
provider maintenance of certification
Facility accreditation Incentives for maintenance of external accreditation by facilities
Laboratory and pharmacy quality
assurance processes
Death and near-miss audits Structured retrospective review and analysis of adverse outcomes, linked to
an action plan
Aligning RBF with Improvement & Health System Strengthening Efforts
Many governments and donors worldwide are increasingly investing in strengthening health systems
and improving quality of care. Such efforts are likely to increase in the era of universal “effective”
health coverage and there are many opportunities for RBF programs to align with such initiatives,
including policy, regulation and standards-setting/protocol initiatives.
Policy related to improvement falls into two distinct areas: 1) policy outlining a country’s approach to
improvement (e.g. national QI policy and strategy); and 2) policy on specific clinical or non-clinical health
related areas. National QI strategies typically cut across all technical areas, defining strategic objectives
and implementation plans to address quality and system gaps in disease-specific programs (e.g. T.B.,
MNCH) and cross-cutting system functions (e.g. health information systems, supply chain and
workforce). RBF programs may be designed to reinforce the implementation of a national QI strategy.
For example, in Zimbabwe the second phase of a World Bank supported RBF program is being
introduced in parallel with the roll-out of a national quality improvement strategy that includes pre- and
in-service training and the phased introduction of an electronic medical record and DHIS2 to strengthen
the country health management information system (HMIS). RBF program supervision checklists with
quality indicators in prioritized clinical areas are building capacity of supervisors and front-line facility
health care teams to pay attention to and continually assess quality of care.
Standards are explicit statements of expected quality in the performance of a health care activity. They
may take the form of procedures, clinical practice guidelines, treatment protocols, critical paths,
algorithms, standard operating procedures, or statements of expected health care outcomes, among
other formats. For example the WHO Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) treatment
protocol spells out specific standards of care for care of the sick child. Such clinical protocols may be
incentivized in RBF programs; indeed several World Bank supported RBF programs incentivize
adherence with clinical protocols.
15. 15
Regulation approaches help maintain and improve quality, ensure patient safety, provide legal
recognition to qualified health professionals, and verify that design or maintenance specifications are
met. Regulation approaches include accreditation (facility), professional licensure and renewal, and
certification and re-certification of professionals and facilities. Many countries are using regulatory
approaches to try to improve or ensure a minimum level of quality and RBF programs may incentivize
specific regulation activities (e.g. incentives for hospitals that maintain accreditation).
In many cases, RBF programs are being proactively designed and implemented in tandem with
complementary health system strengthening activities For example, in Liberia a World Bank supported
Hospital RBF program is being implemented in parallel with a hospital-based residency training program
to address critical workforce gaps. Programs that incentivize availability of essential commodities such
as medications and equipment can be implemented in parallel with supply chain strengthening efforts.
Global efforts in many technical areas are increasingly identifying quality of care as one essential
element for achieving targeted health outcomes (e.g. MDGs). For example, the World Health
Organization (WHO) Department of Maternal, Child and Adolescent health convened a three-day
meeting on quality of maternal, newborn and child health in December 2013 and is planning several
follow-up initiatives including an Every Mother and Every Newborn (EMEN) quality initiative to
complement the soon-to-released Every Newborn Action Plan (ENAP).
Promising Directions for Strengthening Quality as Part of RBF programs
There are many promising directions for strengthening quality of care in RBF programs in low-resource
settings. First and foremost is the recognition of the importance of quality and the huge quality of care
deficits that undermine the performance of health systems worldwide.
Promising directions for strengthening quality in RBF programs are categorized with respect to
country/local directions and cross-cutting multi-country directions:
Illustrative Directions for Strengthening quality of Care in Country RBF programs
Phased introduction of clinical quality performance measures focused on high-burden diseases
with demonstrated quality of care gaps and for which there are evidence-based interventions
Incentives for performance measures tailored to distinct system levels (e.g. primary facilities,
hospitals, district management teams)
Inclusion of incentives for improvement activities at facility level and for improvement capacity-
building by supervisors/managers (see Table 3)
Design of complementary RBF and health system strengthening interventions (HMIS, workforce,
supply chain, etc)
Alignment of RBF programs with established health system strengthening and improvement
efforts (e.g. provider pre-service training; electronic HMIS, etc)
16. 16
Consideration of inclusion of incentives for quality measures related to safety (adverse events),
coordination of care (referral/counter-referral), and client-centeredness of care
Consideration of inclusion of incentives for measures of equity of health care (accessible, high-
quality care for the poorest and most vulnerable)
Regular participation of RBF program managers in country inter-agency technical working
groups relevant to program technical focus
Improvement capacity-building of Government and private sector stakeholders, including
strengthening data management skills
Illustrative Directions for Strengthening Quality Across Country RBF programs
Participation (or regular interface with technical experts) in global technical working groups and
technical conferences (e.g. Inter-agency Newborn Indicators Working Group; NCD Alliance;
International Forum on Quality and Safety; etc.)
Regular tracking and alignment of quality component of RBF programs with global initiatives in
priority technical areas (e.g. WHO Department of Service Delivery and Strengthening (SDS)
initiatives; UN NCD Global Action Plan and monitoring and evaluation framework; No Child Left
Behind; Every Newborn Action Plan)
Articulation of a priority learning agenda linked to an operational research and knowledge
management strategy
Regular synthesis and analysis of learning across RBF programs (knowledge management)
17. 17
References:
Berwick DM. Lessons from developing nations on improving health care, BMJ 2004;328:1124-8.
Donabedian, A. (1997). The quality of care. How can it be assessed? Archives of pathology &
laboratory medicine, 121(11), 1145-1150.
Donabedian, A (2005). "Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966.". The Milbank quarterly 83
(4): 691–729
Donabedian, A. (2003). An introduction to quality assurance in health care. (1st ed., Vol. 1).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Institute of Medicine.
Haynes et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global
population. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360:491-499.
Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A new health system for the 21st
century.
Washington D.C. National Academy Press; 2001.
Institute of Medicine. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. 1999.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s Collaborative Model for
Achieving Improvement Innovation Series. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare
Improvement, 2003.
Nolan T, Angos P, Cunha AJLA et al. Quality of Hospital Care for seriously ill children in less
developed countries. Lancet 2001; 357:106-10.
Rowe AK et al. How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in
low resource settings? Lancet 2005;366:1026-35.
18. 18
Appendices: Hospital Eclampsia Chart Audit Tool Liberia RBF program
Eclampsia Chart Review TABLE
See Eclampsia Chart Review Guide
(based on quarterly review of X randomly selected charts)
Site ………. ……… Month ……………… Year……….
Chart review elements (see chart review guide for specific
criteria) ; each element if recorded = 1 point
Charts
1. Evaluation
1 2 3 4 5
1. Blood pressure (BP) recorded
2. Gestational age (GA) recorded (per one of criteria
indicated in GUIDE)
3. Urine protein quantified (dipstick +, ++, +++)
4. Danger signs assessed (see chart review guide)
Evaluation Score (x/4)
2. Diagnosis pre-eclampsia or eclampsia recorded (if
applicable criteria met)
1. DBP > 90 and at least 2+ proteinuria pre-eclampsia (+
seizure if eclampsia)
Documentation of Diagnosis (x/1)
3Treatment
(a) Mild pre-eclampsia
1. BP check and surveillance for danger signs at least every
4 hours in labor and post-partum
(b) Severe pre-eclampsia
1. 4 gm loading dose of MgSO4 IV ; monitor for toxicity
(reflexes, urine output, respirations)
2. 5 mg MgSO4 IM every 4 hours until minimum 24 hrs after
delivery or convulsion (whichever comes later
19. 19
May consider anti-hypertensive for DBP > 90 (e.g.
hydralazine 5 mg or any safe in pregnancy)
3.
4. Stabilize and deliver immediately if GA > 34 weeks
5. If GA < 34 weeks and patient stable administer
corticosteroids to promote fetal lung maturity
(c) Eclampsia
1. 4 gm loading dose of MgSO4 IV ; monitor for toxicity
(reflexes, urine output, respiration)
2. 5 mg IM every 4 hours (national guideline) until minimum
24 hours after delivery or convulsion (whichever comes
later)
3. Deliver within 12 hours
4. Consider anti-hypertensive (e.g. hydralazine 5 mg or any
safe in pregnancy)
Treatment score (x/3)
4. In-hospital monitoring (labor & post partum)
1. Vital signs monitored- (including BP) every 4 hours
2. Danger signs assessed at least twice daily (HA, visual
disturbance, epigastric pain
3. Provider note in chart at least once daily
In-hospital monitoring score (x/3)
5. Discharge
1. Vital signs documented for at least 24-48 hours
(continued risk of eclampsia)
2. Pre-discharge physical exam documented with pulmonary
and cardiac exam
3. Pre-discharge counseling noted : danger signs ; one
week follow up ; counseling for recurrence risk future
pregnancies ; FP method
Discharge score (x/4)
Numerator = Total of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Denominator = Total possible elements (14)
% adherence with pre/eclampsia standards per chart
(numerator/denominator x 100)
Average % adherence with pre/eclampsia standards (all charts)
20. 20
% Charts at least 80% adherence w/ pre-eclampsia standards
Guidelines for a Section of a Rural Health Center Supervision Checklist
Zimbabwe RBF Program
Maternity Services Instructions for Completion of Checklist Quality Item
Routine MNH best practices; PPH & sepsis
prevention/management (mother &
newborn); post-partum FP
% partograms in last month completed per
guideline (random review minimum 10
partograms)
-FHR, cervical dilatation, descent of presenting part,
maternal BP, pulse, and temperature documented
at admission and at least every 4 hours from
admission until delivery
Randomly review (every 3rd
partogram) at least 10
partograms completed in last month.
Calculate: % partograms completed per minimum
standard.
Numerator: Total # partograms reviewed that document
FHR, cervical dilation, descent of presenting part, maternal
BP, pulse, temperature at admission and at least every 4
hours until delivery
Denominator: Total # partograms reviewed
% women with prolonged labour referred to
higher level facility
-Review all charts meeting obstructed labour criteria
in past month: active labour > 12 hours (from
admission at minimum 4 cm dilation or per patient-
reported labour onset if admitted > 4 cm
--Review all partograms completed in past month and
select out partograms for analysis in which birth occurred
> 12 hrs after onset active labor (from time of admission
or time of 4 cm dilation or > 12 hrs from patient-reported
onset labor if admitted > 4 cm cervical dilation) (note total
# in HMIS maternity section below)
-Calculate: % of partograms with labor > 12 hours in
which women referred to higher level facility
Numerator: Total # partograms documenting active labor
> 12 hours referred to higher level facility
Denominator: Total # partograms documenting active
21. 21
labor > 12 hours
% women delivered in last quarter
administered uterotonic within one minute of
delivery of foetus
(Active Management Third Stage of Labor
(AMTSL) for PPH prevention).
-administration oxytocin 10 units IM within
one minute of delivery of fetus (or misoprostol
or ergomertrine, if BP normal, and oxytocin
unavailable)
-Review birth register (or partograms) for all births in past
month and calculate:
% total births in last month documenting administration
of oxytocin 10 units IM within one minute of delivery of
fetus (or misoprostol or ergometrine if BP normal and
oxytocin unavailable)
Numerator: # of births in past month in which oxytocin
(or another uteronic) administered within one minute
(immediately after) delivery of fetus
Denominator: Total # births within past month
% newborns BF within one hour of birth Review birth register, post-partum register (or other
appropriate register) and calculate:
% total births in last month documenting breastfeeding
within one hour of birth
Numerator: Total # births documenting initiation of
breastfeeding (BF) within one hour of birth
Denominator: Total # births in past month
% women delivered in last quarter monitored
per standard in early post-partum period for
early identification of danger signs
(review at least 10 charts)
- vaginal bleeding, BP, pulse, respiratory rate,
temperature at least every 30 minutes 1st
2 hrs
after birth and then at least twice per day until
discharge
-Randomly review (every 3rd
case) records post-partum
register entries for at least 10 women delivered in last
month
-Calculate: % post-partum women monitored per
standard (birth to discharge)
Numerator: Total # women delivered in past month with
documentation of following items at least every 30
minutes first 2 hours after birth and then at least twice per
day until discharge: vaginal bleeding (present or not), BP
value, pulse value, respiratory rate, temperature value