Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
2
Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
3
School of Clinical Medicine, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
4
School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
5
Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
6
King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
7
Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK
8
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
9
Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK
10
Institute for Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Abstract
Background
We evaluated continuous quality improvement (CQI) targeting antenatal HIV care quality in rural South Africa using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (Management and Optimisation of Nutrition, Antenatal, Reproductive, Child health, MONARCH) and an embedded process evaluation. Here, we present results of the process evaluation examining determinants of CQI practice and ‘normalisation.’
Methods
A team of CQI mentors supported public-sector health workers in seven primary care clinics to (1) identify root causes of poor HIV viral load (VL) monitoring among pregnant women living with HIV and repeat HIV testing among pregnant women not living with HIV, and (2) design and iteratively test their own solutions. We used a mixed methods evaluation with field notes from CQI mentors (‘dose’ and ‘reach’ of CQI, causes of poor HIV care testing rates, implemented change ideas); patient medical records (HIV care testing by clinic and time step); and semi-structured interviews with available health workers. We analysed field notes and semi-structured interviews for determinants of CQI implementation and ‘normalisation’ using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases (TICD) frameworks.
Results
All interviewed health workers found the CQI mentors and methodology helpful for quality improvement. Total administered ‘dose’ was higher than planned but ‘reach’ was limited by resource constraints, particularly staffing shortages. Simple workable improvements to identified root causes were implemented, such as a patient tracking notebook and results filing system. VL monitoring improved over time, but not repeat HIV testing. Besides resource constraints, gaps in knowledge of guidelines, lack of leadership, poor clinical documentation, and data quality gaps reduced CQI implementation fidelity and normalisation.
Conclusion
While CQI holds promise, we identified several health system challenges. Priorities for policy makers include improving staffing and strategies to improve clinical documentation. Additional support with implementing clinical guidelines and improving routine data quality are needed. Normalising CQI may be challenging without concurrent health system improvements.
Trial Registration
Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT02626351
Keywords
)
