Simply providing more resources for universal coverage is not enough to improve health, argue Jishnu Das and colleagues. We also need to ensure good quality of care

Objectives Adherence to the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has not been systematically assessed. We sought to comprehensively evaluate adherence to five key areas of these guidelines. We also evaluated physician and patient factors underlying nonadherence, and predictors of nonadherence such as physician type, patient demographic factors, and phase of CHB infection. Methods Nine hundred and sixty-two adult patients were retrospectively identified. Each patient chart was reviewed in detail. The primary outcome was adherence to five areas of the AASLD guidelines: (i) timely alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/hepatitis B virus DNA level checks needed to monitor inactive carrier and immune-tolerant phases; (ii) liver biopsy to guide decisions on initiating treatment; (iii) treatment initiation when indicated; (iv) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening; (v) testing for hepatitis A virus (HAV) immunity, HIV, and hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infections. Results Sixty percent did not undergo clinically indicated liver biopsies, largely owing to physician nonadherence. Eighty-nine percent of these missed biopsies were needed to further assess possible e-antigen-negative CHB. A high treatment initiation rate was found for the treatment eligible, but 121 patients had unclear treatment eligibility as they warranted, but did not undergo, liver biopsy. Forty-five percent did not have timely HCC screening, although gastroenterology physicians had the highest odds of adherence, and 29% did not have timely CHB lab assessment; patients seen by gastroenterologists had twice the odds compared with primary care physicians of undergoing timely lab monitoring. Thirty-five, 24, and 54% were not tested for HAV, HCV, and HIV co-infections. Conclusions Our findings show remarkably poor adherence to AASLD guidelines, particularly in the areas of liver biopsy, timely HCC and ALT monitoring, and testing for co-infection. These findings call for greater efforts to meet physician knowledge gaps, incorporation of decision support tools, and improved communication among providers.

ProblemIn hospitals in rural, resource-limited settings, there is an acute need for simple, practical strategies to improve healthcare quality.SettingA district hospital in remote western Nepal.Key measures for improvementTo provide a mechanism for systems-level reflection so that staff can identify targets for quality improvement in healthcare delivery.Strategies for changeTo develop a morbidity and mortality conference (M&M) quality improvement initiative that aims to facilitate structured analysis of patient care and identify barriers to providing quality care, which can subsequently be improved.DesignThe authors designed an M&M involving clinical and non-clinical staff in conducting root-cause analyses of healthcare delivery at their hospital. Weekly conferences focus on seven domains of causal analysis: operations, supply chain, equipment, personnel, outreach, societal, and structural. Each conference focuses on assessing the care provided, and identifying ways in which services can be improved in the future.Effects of changeStaff reception of the M&Ms was positive. In these M&Ms, staff identified problem areas in healthcare delivery and steps for improvement. Subsequently, changes were made in hospital workflow, supply procurement, and on-site training.Lessons learntWhile widely practiced throughout the world, M&Ms typically do not involve both clinical and non-clinical staff members and do not take a systems-level approach. The authors' experience suggests that the adapted M&M conference is a simple, feasible tool for quality improvement in resource-limited settings. Senior managerial commitment is crucial to ensure successful implementation of M&Ms, given the challenging logistics of implementing these programmes in resource-limited health facilities.

No abstract