Search

Objective To develop a composite measure of primary care quality and apply it to Haiti's primary care system. Methods Using the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative's framework, we defined four domains of primary care service delivery: (i) accessible care; (ii) effective service delivery; (iii) management and organization; and (iv) primary care functions. We gave each primary care facility in Haiti a quality score for each domain and overall, with poor, fair and good quality indicated by scores of 0.00-0.49, 0.50-0.74 and 0.75-1.00, respectively. We quantified access and effective access to primary care as the proportions of the population within 5 km of any primary care facility and a good facility, respectively. Findings Of the 786 primary care facilities in Haiti in 2013, only 332 (43%) facilities were classified as good for accessible care. Fewer facilities were classified as good in the domains of effective service delivery (30; 4%), management and organization (91; 12%) and primary care functions (43; 5%). Although about 91% of the population lived within 5 km of a primary care facility, only an estimated 23% of the entire population -- including just 5% of the rural population -- had access to primary care of good quality. Conclusion Despite an extensive network of health facilities, a minority of Haitians had access to a primary care facility of good quality. Such facilities were especially scarce in rural areas. Similar systematic analyses of the quality of primary care could inform national efforts to strengthen health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To analyse factors affecting variations in the observed quality of antenatal and sick-child care in primary-care facilities in seven African countries. Methods We pooled nationally representative data from service provision assessment surveys of health facilities in Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania (survey year range: 2006-2014). Based on World Health Organization protocols, we created indices of process quality for antenatal care (first visits) and for sick-child visits. We assessed national, facility, provider and patient factors that might explain variations in quality of care, using separate multilevel regression models of quality for each service. Findings Data were available for 2594 and 11 402 observations of clinical consultations for antenatal care and sick children, respectively. Overall, health-care providers performed a mean of 62.2% (interquartile range, IQR: 50.0 to 75.0) of eight recommended antenatal care actions and 54.5% (IQR: 33.3 to 66.7) of nine sick-child care actions at observed visits. Quality of antenatal care was higher in better-staffed and -equipped facilities and lower for physicians and clinical officers than nurses. Experienced providers and those in better-managed facilities provided higher quality sick-child care, with no differences between physicians and nurses or between better- and less-equipped clinics. Private facilities outperformed public facilities. Country differences were more influential in explaining variance in quality than all other factors combined. Conclusion The quality of two essential primary-care services for women and children was weak and varied across and within the countries. Analysis of reasons for variations in quality could identify strategies for improving care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]