Assessment of quality of primary care with facility surveys: a descriptive analysis in ten low-income and middle-income countries

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundPrimary care has the potential to address a large proportion of people's health needs, promote equity, and contain costs, but only if it provides high-quality health services that people want to use. 40 years after the Declaration of Alma-Ata, little is known about the quality of primary care in low-income and middle-income countries. We assessed whether existing facility surveys capture relevant aspects of primary care performance and summarised the quality of primary care in ten low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe used Service Provision Assessment surveys, the most comprehensive nationally representative surveys of health systems, to select indicators corresponding to three of the process quality domains (competent systems, evidence-based care, and user experience) identified by the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems in the Sustainable Development Goals Era. We calculated composite and domain quality scores for first-level primary care facilities across and within ten countries with available facility assessment data (Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda).FindingsData were available for 7049 facilities and 63 869 care visits. There were gaps in measurement of important outcomes such as user experience, health outcomes, and confidence, and processes such as timely action, choice of provider, affordability, ease of use, dignity, privacy, non-discrimination, autonomy, and confidentiality. No information about care competence was available outside maternal and child health. Overall, scores for primary care quality were low (mean 0·41 on a scale of 0 to 1). At a domain level, scores were lowest for user experience, followed by evidence-based care, and then competent systems. At the subdomain level, scores for patient focus, prevention and detection, technical quality of sick-child care, and population-health management were lower than those for other subdomains.InterpretationFacility surveys do not capture key elements of primary care quality. The available measures suggest major gaps in primary care quality. If not addressed, these gaps will limit the contribution of primary care to reaching the ambitious Sustainable Development Goals.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The quality of malaria care in 25 low-income and middle-income countries

“…Our findings in Uganda showing 60% poor malaria care quality are reflective of previous findings that adherence to Ugandan national malaria treatment guidelines was only at 50.6% in 2016,26 with about 15% of providers not knowing the first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria 27. Similarly, being in the capitals of these countries does not translate to better quality of malaria care as supported by previous literature 28. Regional disparities in malaria care quality may be driven by socioeconomic and regional characteristics (eg, funding, governance, human resource availability) which can be explored once data become available.…”

Evaluating implementation of “management of Possible Serious Bacterial Infection (PSBI) when referral is not feasible” in primary health care facilities in Sindh province, Pakistan

“…Our data shows that for young infant and newborn care, availability of drugs, supplies and equipment and overall counselling of caretakers was better when compared with other health facility assessments in Ghana [19], Pakistan [22] and Uganda [23]. Our data also revealed better overall service provision compared to an assessment of PHC facilities in ten LMICs evaluated services available for sick children according to IMCI guidelines [24]. Health facility surveys conducted in the past have focused on care during pregnancy and delivery, and essential newborn care [22,24,25], whereas we focused on PSBI management of young infants.…”

Evaluation of a facility-based inspection tool to assess lymphedema management services in Vietnam

“…While there are a variety of methods available to assess readiness of facilities to provide quality care, including the WHO Systems Availability and Readiness Assessment, the Service Provision Assessment, and the World Bank’s Service Delivery Indicators tools [ 8 , 18 , 19 ], these and other health facility assessment tools contain different indicators and use varying methodologies, which has led to gaps in comparability and in linking availability of services to outcomes [ 20 – 22 ]. In addition, they do not include NTD-specific indicators.…”