Search

Background and Objective: Efforts to improve the adoption of evidence‐based interventions for optimal patient outcomes in low‐/middle‐income countries (LMICs) are persistently hampered by a plethora of barriers. Yet, little is known about strategies to address such barriers to improve quality stroke care. This study seeks to explore health professionals' views on strategies to improve quality stroke care for people who had a stroke in a LMIC. Methods: A qualitative interview study design was adopted. A semi‐structured interview guide was used to conduct in‐depth interviews among forty stroke care providers in major referral centres in Ghana. Participants were from nursing, medical, specialist and allied health professional groups. A purposive sample was recruited to share their views on practical strategies to improve quality stroke care in clinical settings. A thematic analysis approach was utilized to inductively analyse the data. Results: A number of overarching themes of strategies to improve quality stroke care were identified: computerization and digitization of medical practice, allocation of adequate resources, increase the human resource capacity to deliver stroke care, development of clinical guideline/treatment protocols, institutionalization of multidisciplinary care and professional development opportunities. These strategies were however differentially prioritized among different categories of stroke care providers. Conclusion: Closing the gap between existing knowledge on how to improve quality of stroke care in LMICs has the potential to be successful if unique and context‐specific measures from the views of stroke care providers are considered in developing quality improvement strategies and health systems and policy reforms. However, for optimal outcomes, further research into the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed strategies by stroke care providers is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted frontline health workers. However, a neglected dimension of this discourse was the extent to which the pandemic impacted frontline healthcare workers providing non-communicable diseases (NCDs) care. This study aims to understand the experiences of healthcare workers with no prior exposure to pandemics who provided care to people living with NCDs (PLWNCDs)., Methods: A qualitative study design was employed, using a face-to-face in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted in primary healthcare facilities in three administrative regions of Ghana, representing the Northern, Southern and Middle Belts. Only frontline health workers with roles in providing care for PLWNCDs were included. Purposive snowballing and convenience sampling methods were employed to select frontline health workers. An open-ended interview guide was used to facilitate data collection, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data., Results: A total of 47 frontline health workers were interviewed. Overall, these workers experienced diverse patient-driven and organisational challenges. Patient-level challenges included a decline in healthcare utilisation, non-adherence to treatment, a lack of continuity, fear and stigma. At the organisational levels, there was a lack of medical logistics, increased infection of workers and absenteeism, increased workload and burnout, limited motivational packages and inadequate guidelines and protocols. Workers coped and responded to the pandemic by postponing reviews and consultations, reducing inpatient and outpatient visits, changing their prescription practices, using teleconsultation and moving to long-shift systems., Conclusion: This study has brought to the fore the experiences that adversely affected frontline health workers and, in many ways, affected the care provided to PLWNCDs. Policymakers and health managers should take these experiences into account in plans to mitigate the impact of future pandemics., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)