Primary health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income settings (LMIC) often work in challenging conditions in remote, rural areas, in isolation from the rest of the health system and particularly specialist care. Much attention has been given to implementation of interventions to support quality and performance improvement for workers in such settings. However, little is known about the design of such initiatives and which approaches predominate, let alone those that are most effective. We aimed for a broad understanding of what distinguishes different approaches to primary HCW support and performance improvement and to clarify the existing evidence as well as gaps in evidence in order to inform decision-making and design of programs intended to support and improve the performance of health workers in these settings. We systematically searched the literature for articles addressing this topic, and undertook a comparative review to document the principal approaches to performance and quality improvement for primary HCWs in LMIC settings. We identified 40 eligible papers reporting on interventions that we categorized into five different approaches: (1) supervision and supportive supervision; (2) mentoring; (3) tools and aids; (4) quality improvement methods, and (5) coaching. The variety of study designs and quality/performance indicators precluded a formal quantitative data synthesis. The most extensive literature was on supervision, but there was little clarity on what defines the most effective approach to the supervision activities themselves, let alone the design and implementation of supervision programs. The mentoring literature was limited, and largely focused on clinical skills building and educational strategies. Further research on how best to incorporate mentorship into pre-service clinical training, while maintaining its function within the routine health system, is needed. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about coaching in this setting, however a review of the corporate and the business school literature is warranted to identify transferrable approaches. A substantial literature exists on tools, but significant variation in approaches makes comparison challenging. We found examples of effective individual projects and designs in specific settings, but there was a lack of comparative research on tools across approaches or across settings, and no systematic analysis within specific approaches to provide evidence with clear generalizability. Future research should prioritize comparative intervention trials to establish clear global standards for performance and quality improvement initiatives. Such standards will be critical to creating and sustaining a well-functioning health workforce and for global initiatives such as universal health coverage.

No abstract

BackgroundHealthcare and other front-line workers are at particular risk of infection with Ebola virus (EBOV). Despite the large-scale deployment of international responders, few cases of Ebola virus disease have been diagnosed in this group. Since asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection has been described, it is plausible that infections have occurred in healthcare workers but have escaped being diagnosed. We aimed to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection, and of exposure events, among returned responders to the West African Ebola epidemic 2014–2016.Methods and findingsWe used snowball sampling to identify responders who had returned to the UK or Ireland, and used an online consent and questionnaire to determine their exposure to EBOV and their experience of illness. Oral fluid collection devices were sent and returned by post, and samples were tested using an EBOV IgG capture assay that detects IgG to Ebola glycoprotein. Blood was collected from returnees with reactive samples for further testing. Unexposed UK controls were also recruited.In all, 300 individuals consented, of whom 268 (89.3%) returned an oral fluid sample (OFS). The majority had worked in Sierra Leone in clinical, laboratory, research, and other roles. Fifty-three UK controls consented and provided samples using the same method.Of the returnees, 47 (17.5%) reported that they had had a possible EBOV exposure. Based on their free-text descriptions, using a published risk assessment method, we classified 43 (16%) as having had incidents with risk of Ebola transmission, including five intermediate-risk and one high-risk exposure. Of the returnees, 57 (21%) reported a febrile or diarrhoeal illness in West Africa or within 1 mo of return, of whom 40 (70%) were not tested at the time for EBOV infection.Of the 268 OFSs, 266 were unreactive. Two returnees, who did not experience an illness in West Africa or on return, had OFSs that were reactive on the EBOV IgG capture assay, with similar results on plasma. One individual had no further positive test results; the other had a positive result on a double-antigen bridging assay but not on a competitive assay or on an indirect EBOV IgG ELISA. All 53 controls had non-reactive OFSs. While the participants were not a random sample of returnees, the number participating was high.ConclusionsThis is the first study, to our knowledge, of the prevalence of EBOV infection in international responders. More than 99% had clear negative results. Sera from two individuals had discordant results on the different assays; both were negative on the competitive assay, suggesting that prior infection was unlikely. The finding that a significant proportion experienced “near miss” exposure events, and that most of those who experienced symptoms did not get tested for EBOV at the time, suggests a need to review and standardise protocols for the management of possible exposure to EBOV, and for the management of illness, across organisations that deploy staff to outbreaks.

No abstract