Advances in Monitoring Have Not Translated into Improvements in Humanitarian Health Services

Quality in crisis: a systematic review of the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings

Background

There is a growing concern that the quality of health systems in humanitarian crises and the care they provide has received little attention. To help better understand current practice and research on health system quality, this paper aimed to examine the evidence on the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings.

Methods

This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The context of interest was populations affected by humanitarian crisis in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We included studies where the intervention of interest, health services for populations affected by crisis, was provided by the formal health system. Our outcome of interest was the quality of the health system. We included primary research studies, from a combination of information sources, published in English between January 2000 and January 2019 using quantitative and qualitative methods. We used the High Quality Health Systems Framework to analyze the included studies by quality domain and sub-domain.

Results

We identified 2285 articles through our search, of which 163 were eligible for full-text review, and 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Poor diagnosis, inadequate patient referrals, and inappropriate treatment of illness were commonly cited barriers to quality care. There was a strong focus placed on the foundations of a health system with emphasis on the workforce and tools, but a limited focus on the health impacts of health systems. The review also suggests some barriers to high quality health systems that are specific to humanitarian settings such as language barriers for refugees in their host country, discontinued care for migrant populations with chronic conditions, and fears around provider safety.

Conclusion

The review highlights a large gap in the measurement of quality both at the point of care and at the health system level. There is a need for further work particularly on health system measurement strategies, accountability mechanisms, and patient-centered approaches in humanitarian settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13031-021-00342-z.

Evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crises

Recognition of the need for evidence-based interventions to help to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of humanitarian responses has been increasing. However, little is known about the breadth and quality of evidence on health interventions in humanitarian crises. We describe the findings of a systematic review with the aim of examining the quantity and quality of evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crises to identify key research gaps. We identified 345 studies published between 1980 and 2014 that met our inclusion criteria. The quantity of evidence varied substantially by health topic, from communicable diseases (n=131), nutrition (n=77), to non-communicable diseases (n=8), and water, sanitation, and hygiene (n=6). We observed common study design and weaknesses in the methods, which substantially reduced the ability to determine causation and attribution of the interventions. Considering the major increase in health-related humanitarian activities in the past three decades and calls for a stronger evidence base, this paper highlights the limited quantity and quality of health intervention research in humanitarian contexts and supports calls to scale up this research.

Recurrent failings of medical humanitarianism: intractable, ignored, or just exaggerated?

Humanitarian health workers operate in dangerous and uncertain contexts, in which mistakes and failures are common, often have severe consequences, and are regularly repeated, despite being documented by many reviews. This Series paper aims to discuss the failures of medical humanitarianism. We describe why some of these recurrent failings, which are often not identified until much later, seem intractable: they are so entrenched in humanitarian action that they cannot be addressed by simple technical fixes. We argue that relief health-care interventions should be contextualised. Perhaps medical humanitarianism deserves a better reputation than the one at times tarnished by unfair criticism, resulting from inapplicable guiding principles and unrealistic expectations. The present situation is not conducive to radical reforms of humanitarian medicine; complex crises multiply and no political, diplomatic, or military solutions are in sight. Relief agencies have to compete for financial resources that do not increase at the same pace as health needs. Avoiding the repetition of failures requires recognising previous mistakes and addressing them through different policies by donors, stronger documentation and analysis of humanitarian programmes and interventions, increased professionalisation, improved, opportunistic relationships with the media, and better ways of working together with local health stakeholders and through indigenous institutions.

Building clinical practice in the Palestine Red Crescent operation theatres in Lebanon: reflections from the perspective of an expatriate nurse

AIM

This paper, based on the experience of the first author as an expatriate nurse, aims to describe and discuss some aspects of collaboration that contributed to the building of clinical practice when implementing an operating theatre programme in the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) hospitals in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND

The operation theatre programme lasted for 8 months: 6 months in 2008 and 2 months in 2009. The programme was part of the partnership project 'Quality of care in the five PRCS hospitals in Lebanon' between the International Committee of the Red Cross and the PRCS Lebanon (PRCS-L) branch.

FINDINGS

The essential aspects that may have contributed to the building of clinical practice in the operation theatre programme included the expatriate nurse and the Palestine Red Crescent operating theatre nurses working together over time as colleagues, the socio-cultural pedagogic perspective selected for the implementation and the collaboration with the management of the hospitals and counterparts in the PRCS-L branch. One should also note the human and structural issues that seemed to influence the implementation of the programme in a more negative way.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience may provide insight for other nurses into the importance of working as colleagues, selecting an appropriate pedagogic perspective and establishing productive collaboration with all partners when building clinical practice during a humanitarian mission.

Dialogue is Destiny: Managing the Message in Humanitarian Action

During humanitarian response efforts, the mass media serves as the primary informational intermediary informing donors, policy makers, and the nonaffected public. A lack of professional standards within the current culture of journalism, the politics of media ownership, and media manipulation by governments has distorted reporting on humanitarian crises, with possible detrimental effects on response efforts. Humanitarian response organizations must assume a proactive, leading role in the management and sharing of information with each other as well as with donors, policy makers, and the public. This will require working with the media as partners, as well as exploring innovative methods of mass communication. A multi-stakeholder, cooperative communication initiative could help improve media involvement, and harness the media as a credible and knowledgeable communication tool for response efforts. A professional publication dedicated to the discipline of humanitarian relief also could optimize efforts, communicate the perspectives of beneficiaries, and manage the underutilized resource of the general public.

Commentary: Ensuring health statistics in conflict are evidence-based

The author argues that measuring mortality in conflict settings is fraught with limitations which mostly result in under-estimation of mortality. Some recent publications on this subject have been based upon convenient surveillance processes, or even press reports. The author calls for vigilance against such studies and argues that war related surveillance-based mortality estimates should include measures of sensitivity and representativeness.