Search

Background: The WHO’s Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) has resulted in progress in addressing infant and child mortality. However, unmet needs of children continue to present a burden upon primary healthcare services. The capacity of services and quality of care offered require greater support to address these needs by extending and integrating curative and preventive care for the child with a long-term health condition and the child older than 5, not prioritised in IMCI. In response to these needs, the PACK Child intervention was developed, to expand the scope of integrated management and training programmes for paediatric primary care. We report health worker and caregiver perspectives of the existing paediatric primary care context as well as the extent to which PACK Child functions to address perceived problems within the current local healthcare system. Methods: This process evaluation involved 52 individual interviews with caregivers, 10 focus group discussions with health workers, 3 individual interviews with trainers, and 31 training observations. Interviews and focus groups explored participants’ experiences of paediatric primary care, perspectives of the PACK Child intervention, and tensions with implementation in each context. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse verbatim interview and discussion transcripts.Results: Perspectives of caregivers and health workers suggest an institutionalised focus of paediatric primary care to treating children’s symptoms as acute episodic conditions. Health workers’ reports imply that this focus is perpetuated by interactions between contextual features such as, IMCI policy, documentation-driven consultations, overcrowded clinics and verticalised care. Whilst these contextual conditions constrained health workers’ ability to translate skills developed within PACK Child training into practice, the intervention initiated expanded care of children 0-13 years and those with long-term health conditions, enhanced professional competence, improved teamwork and referrals, streamlined triaging, and facilitated probing for psychosocial risk.ConclusionPACK Child appears to be catalysing paediatric primary care to address the broader needs of children, including long-term health conditions and the identification of psychosocial problems. However, to maximise this requires primary care to re-orientate from risk minimisation on the day of attendance towards a view of the child beyond the day of presentation at clinics.

Background Despite significant reductions in mortality, preventable and treatable conditions remain leading causes of death and illness in children in South Africa. The PACK Child intervention, comprising clinical decision support tool (guide), training strategy and health systems strengthening components, was developed to expand on WHO’s Integrated Management of Childhood Illness programme, extending care of children under 5 years to those aged 0–13 years, those with chronic conditions needing regular follow-up, integration of curative and preventive measures and routine care of the well child. In 2017–2018, PACK Child was piloted in 10 primary healthcare facilities in the Western Cape Province. Here we report findings from an investigation into the contextual features of South African primary care that shaped how clinicians delivered the PACK Child intervention within clinical consultations. Methods Process evaluation using linguistic ethnographic methodology which provides analytical tools for investigating human behaviour, and the shifting meaning of talk and text within context. Methods included semi-structured interviews, focus groups, ethnographic observation, audio-recorded consultations and documentary analysis. Analysis focused on how mapped contextual features structured clinician-caregiver interactions. Results Primary healthcare facilities demonstrated an institutionalised orientation to minimising risk upheld by provincial documentation, providing curative episodic care to children presenting with acute symptoms, and preventive care including immunisations, feeding and growth monitoring, all in children 5 years or younger. Children with chronic illnesses such as asthma rarely receive routine care. These contextual features constrained the ability of clinicians to use the PACK Child guide to facilitate diagnosis of long-term conditions, elicit and manage psychosocial issues, and navigate use of the guide alongside provincial documentation. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence that PACK Child is catalysing a transition to an approach that strikes a balance between assessing and minimising risk on the day of acute presentation and a larger remit of care for children over time. However, optimising success of the intervention requires reviewing priorities for paediatric care which will facilitate enhanced skills, knowledge and deployment of clinical staff to better address acute illnesses and long-term health conditions of children of all ages, as well as complex psychosocial issues surrounding the child.

Background: Despite significant reductions in mortality, preventable and treatable conditions remain leading causes of death and illness in children aged under five in South Africa. The PACK Child intervention, comprising a clinical decision support tool (guide), training strategy and health systems strengthening components, was developed to expand on WHO’s Integrated Management of Childhood Illness programme, and in 2017-2018 was piloted in 10 primary healthcare facilities in the Western Cape Province. Here we report findings from an investigation into the contextual features of South African primary care that shaped how clinicians delivered the PACK Child intervention within clinical consultations. Methods: Process evaluation using semi-structured interviews, focus groups, observation, audio-recorded consultations and documentary analysis. Linguistic ethnographic analysis of relationship between primary care contextual features and clinician-caregiver interactions.Results: Primary healthcare facilities demonstrated dominance of a risk minimisation approach upheld by provincial documentation, providing curative episodic care to children presenting with acute symptoms, and preventive care including immunisations, feeding and growth monitoring, all in children 5 years or younger. Children with chronic illnesses such as asthma rarely received routine care. These contextual features constrained the ability of clinicians to use the PACK Child intervention to facilitate diagnosis of long-term conditions, elicit and manage psychosocial issues, and navigate use of the guide alongside provincial documentation. Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that PACK Child is catalysing a transition to an approach that strikes a balance between risk minimisation on the day of an acute presentation and a larger remit of care for the child over time. However, to optimise success of the intervention requires reviewing priorities for paediatric care which will facilitate enhanced skills, knowledge and deployment of clinical staff to better address acute illnesses and long-term health conditions of children of all ages, as well as complex psychosocial issues surrounding the child.

For the primary health worker in a low/middle-income country (LMIC) setting, delivering quality primary care is challenging. This is often complicated by clinical guidance that is out of date, inconsistent and informed by evidence from high-income countries that ignores LMIC resource constraints and burden of disease. The Knowledge Translation Unit (KTU) of the University of Cape Town Lung Institute has developed, implemented and evaluated a health systems intervention in South Africa, and localised it to Botswana, Nigeria, Ethiopia and Brazil, that simplifies and standardises the care delivered by primary health workers while strengthening the system in which they work. At the core of this intervention, called Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK), is a clinical decision support tool, the PACK guide. This paper describes the development of the guide over an 18-year period and explains the design features that have addressed what the patient, the clinician and the health system need from clinical guidance, and have made it, in the words of a South African primary care nurse, ‘A tool for every day for every patient’. It describes the lessons learnt during the development process that the KTU now applies to further development, maintenance and in-country localisation of the guide: develop clinical decision support in context first, involve local stakeholders in all stages, leverage others’ evidence databases to remain up to date and ensure content development, updating and localisation articulate with implementation.