Development and use of clinical vignettes to assess injury care quality in Northern Malawi

The burden of long bone fracture and health system response in Malawi: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Fractures pose serious health and socioeconomic consequences for individuals, their families, and societies more broadly. In many low-resource settings, case fatality and long-term sequelae after a fracture remain high due to individual- and system-level barriers affecting timely access to care. This scoping review explored the burden of fractures in Malawi using long bone fracture (LBF) as a case study by examining the epidemiology of these injuries, their consequences, and the accessibility of quality healthcare. Our aim is to not only describe the scale of the issue but to identify specific interventions that can help address the challenges faced in settings with limited resources and healthcare budgets.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was adopted with a narrative synthesis of results. We searched five databases to identify relevant literature and applied the "Three Delays" model and the WHO's Building Blocks Framework to analyse findings on the accessibility of fracture care.

RESULTS

Fractures most often occurred among young males, with falls being the leading cause, constituting between 5 and 35 % of the total burden of injuries. Fractures were typically managed without surgery despite consistent local evidence showing surgical treatment was superior to conservative management in terms of length of hospital stay and bone healing. Poor functional, economic, and social outcomes were noted in fracture patients, especially after conservative treatment. A lack of trust in the health system, financial barriers, poor transport, and road infrastructure, and interfacility transfers were identified as barriers to care-seeking. Factors challenging the provision of appropriate care included governance issues, poor health infrastructure, financial constraints, and shortage of supplies and human resources.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this review represents the first comprehensive examination of the state of LBF and the health system's response in Malawi. The findings underscore the pressing need for a national trauma registry to accurately determine the actual burden of injuries and support a tailored approach to fracture care in Malawi. It is further evident that the health system in Malawi must be strengthen across all six building blocks to address obstacles to equitable access to high-quality fracture care.

Health system assessment for access to care after injury in low- or middle-income countries: A mixed methods study from Northern Malawi

BACKGROUND

Injuries represent a vast and relatively neglected burden of disease affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While many health systems underperform in treating injured patients, most assessments have not considered the whole system. We integrated findings from 9 methods using a 3 delays approach (delays in seeking, reaching, or receiving care) to prioritise important trauma care health system barriers in Karonga, Northern Malawi, and exemplify a holistic health system assessment approach applicable in comparable settings.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To provide multiple perspectives on each conceptual delay and include data from community-based and facility-based sources, we used 9 methods to examine the injury care health system. The methods were (1) household survey; (2) verbal autopsy analysis; (3) community focus group discussions (FGDs); (4) community photovoice; (5) facility care-pathway process mapping and elucidation of barriers following injury; (6) facility healthcare worker survey; (7) facility assessment survey; (8) clinical vignettes for care process quality assessment of facility-based healthcare workers; and (9) geographic information system (GIS) analysis. Empirical data collection took place in Karonga, Northern Malawi, between July 2019 and February 2020. We used a convergent parallel study design concurrently conducting all data collection before subsequently integrating results for interpretation. For each delay, a matrix was created to juxtapose method-specific data relevant to each barrier identified as driving delays to injury care. Using a consensus approach, we graded the evidence from each method as to whether an identified barrier was important within the health system. We identified 26 barriers to access timely quality injury care evidenced by at least 3 of the 9 study methods. There were 10 barriers at delay 1, 6 at delay 2, and 10 at delay 3. We found that the barriers "cost," "transport," and "physical resources" had the most methods providing strong evidence they were important health system barriers within delays 1 (seeking care), 2 (reaching care), and 3 (receiving care), respectively. Facility process mapping provided evidence for the greatest number of barriers-25 of 26 within the integrated analysis. There were some barriers with notable divergent findings between the community- and facility-based methods, as well as among different community- and facility-based methods, which are discussed. The main limitation of our study is that the framework for grading evidence strength for important health system barriers across the 9 studies was done by author-derived consensus; other researchers might have created a different framework.

CONCLUSIONS

By integrating 9 different methods, including qualitative, quantitative, community-, patient-, and healthcare worker-derived data sources, we gained a rich insight into the functioning of this health system's ability to provide injury care. This approach allowed more holistic appraisal of this health system's issues by establishing convergence of evidence across the diverse methods used that the barriers of cost, transport, and physical resources were the most important health system barriers driving delays to seeking, reaching, and receiving injury care, respectively. This offers direction and confidence, over and above that derived from single methodology studies, for prioritising barriers to address through health service development and policy.

Novel application of multi-facility process map analysis for rapid injury care health system assessment in Northern Malawi

OBJECTIVES

We used the process mapping method and Three Delays framework, to identify and visually represent the relationship between critical actions, decisions and barriers to access to care following injury in the Karonga health system, Northern Malawi.

DESIGN

Facilitated group process mapping workshops with summary process mapping synthesis.

SETTING

Process mapping workshops took place in 11 identified health system facilities (one per facility) providing injury care for a population in Karonga, Northern Malawi.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-four healthcare workers from various cadres took part.

RESULTS

An overall injury health system summary map was created using those categories of action, decision and barrier that were sometimes or frequently reported. This provided a visual summary of the process following injury within the health system. For Delay 1 (seeking care) four barriers were most commonly described (by 8 of 11 facilities) these were 'cultural norms', 'healthcare literacy', 'traditional healers' and 'police processes'. For Delay 2 (reaching care) the barrier most frequently described was 'transport'-a lack of timely affordable emergency transport (formal or informal) described by all 11 facilities. For Delay 3 (receiving quality care) the most commonly reported barrier was that of 'physical resources' (9 of 11 facilities).

CONCLUSIONS

We found our novel approach combining several process mapping exercises to produce a summary map to be highly suited to rapid health system assessment identifying barriers to injury care, within a Three Delays framework. We commend the approach to others wishing to conduct rapid health system assessments in similar contexts.