Evaluation of the Safe Care, Saving Lives (SCSL) quality improvement collaborative for neonatal health in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: a study protocol

Using theory of change in child health service interventions: a scoping review protocol

Background: The objective of this scoping review is to map the evidence of how child health service interventions use their theory of change. A theory of change is a hypothesis of how and why an intervention is intended to bring about change. It can be used as a program design, implementation, and evaluation tool. This scoping review will provide an overview of the evidence base for, and identify the way in which, theories of change in child health service interventions are defined, rationalised, developed, presented, and refined. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this scoping review is any child health service intervention globally, that describes their theory of change or theory of change development process. Relevant exclusions include: logic models or logic frameworks that do not meet this review's definition of theory of change, systematic reviews, behavioural change interventions that target patient's behaviour, school-based interventions, and maternal health interventions not related to child health outcomes. This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's manual. Relevant publications will be first searched on selected electronic databases and grey literature. A search strategy will be developed. The search will be limited to articles written in the English language. Results of the search will be curated using Endnote and duplicates removed. Results will be imported to Rayyan. The inclusion criteria will be applied during the process of title and abstract screening, by two independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by a third independent reviewer. Full-texts will have the inclusion criteria applied via the same reviewer process. Data relevant to the research sub-questions will be extracted, analysed, charted and discussed. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as we will make use of already published data. We aim to publish the findings of our review in a peer-reviewed journal.

Increasing adherence to plotting e-partograph: a quality improvement project in a rural maternity hospital in India

Abnormal prolonged labour and its effects are important contributors to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity worldwide. E-partograph is a modern tool for real-time computerised recording of labour data which improves maternal and neonatal outcome. The aim was to improve the rates of e-partograph plotting in all eligible women in the labour room from existing 30% to achieve 90% in 6 months through a quality improvement (QI) process.A team of nurses, obstetricians, postgraduates and a data entry operator did a root cause analysis to identify the possible reasons for the drop in e-partograph plotting to 30%. The team used process flow mapping and fish bone analysis. Various change ideas were tested through sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to address the issues identified.The interventions included training labour room staff, identification of eligible women and providing an additional computer and internet facility for plotting and assigning responsibility of plotting e-partographs. We implemented these interventions in five PDSA cycles and observed outcomes by using control charts. A set of process, output and outcome indicators were used to track if the changes made were leading to improvement.The rate of e-partograph plotting increased from 30% to 93% over the study period of 6 months from August 2018 to January 2019. The result has been sustained since the last PDSA cycle. The maternal outcome included a decrease in obstructed and prolonged labour with its associated complications from 6.2% to 2.4%. The neonatal outcomes included a decrease in admissions in the neonatal intensive care unit for birth asphyxia from 8% to 3.4%. It can thus be concluded that a QI approach can help in improving adherence to e-partography plotting resulting in improved maternal health services in a rural maternity hospital in India.

Effect of collaborative quality improvement on stillbirths, neonatal mortality and newborn care practices in hospitals of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: evidence from a quasi-experimental mixed-methods study

Background

Improving quality of care is a key priority to reduce neonatal mortality and stillbirths. The Safe Care, Saving Lives programme aimed to improve care in newborn care units and labour wards of 60 public and private hospitals in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India, using a collaborative quality improvement approach. Our external evaluation of this programme aimed to evaluate programme effects on implementation of maternal and newborn care practices, and impact on stillbirths, 7- and 28-day neonatal mortality rate in labour wards and neonatal care units. We also aimed to evaluate programme implementation and mechanisms of change.

Methods

We used a quasi-experimental plausibility design with a nested process evaluation. We evaluated effects on stillbirths, mortality and secondary outcomes relating to adherence to 20 evidence-based intrapartum and newborn care practices, comparing survey data from 29 hospitals receiving the intervention to 31 hospitals expected to receive the intervention later, using a difference-in-difference analysis. We analysed programme implementation data and conducted 42 semi-structured interviews in four case studies to describe implementation and address four theory-driven questions to explain the quantitative results.

Results

Only 7 of the 29 intervention hospitals were engaged in the intervention for its entire duration. There was no evidence of an effect of the intervention on stillbirths [DiD − 1.3 percentage points, 95% CI − 2.6–0.1], on neonatal mortality at age 7 days [DiD − 1.6, 95% CI − 9–6.2] or 28 days [DiD − 3.0, 95% CI − 12.9—6.9] or on adherence to target evidence-based intrapartum and newborn care practices. The process evaluation identified challenges in engaging leaders; challenges in developing capacity for quality improvement; and challenges in activating mechanisms of change at the unit level, rather than for a few individuals, and in sustaining these through the creation of new social norms.

Conclusion

Despite careful planning and substantial resources, the intervention was not feasible for implementation on a large scale. Greater focus is required on strategies to engage leadership. Quality improvement may need to be accompanied by clinical training. Further research is also needed on quality improvement using a health systems perspective.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-020-01058-z.

How and under what circumstances do quality improvement collaboratives lead to better outcomes? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement collaboratives are widely used to improve health care in both high-income and low and middle-income settings. Teams from multiple health facilities share learning on a given topic and apply a structured cycle of change testing. Previous systematic reviews reported positive effects on target outcomes, but the role of context and mechanism of change is underexplored. This realist-inspired systematic review aims to analyse contextual factors influencing intended outcomes and to identify how quality improvement collaboratives may result in improved adherence to evidence-based practices.

METHODS

We built an initial conceptual framework to drive our enquiry, focusing on three context domains: health facility setting; project-specific factors; wider organisational and external factors; and two further domains pertaining to mechanisms: intra-organisational and inter-organisational changes. We systematically searched five databases and grey literature for publications relating to quality improvement collaboratives in a healthcare setting and containing data on context or mechanisms. We analysed and reported findings thematically and refined the programme theory.

RESULTS

We screened 962 abstracts of which 88 met the inclusion criteria, and we retained 32 for analysis. Adequacy and appropriateness of external support, functionality of quality improvement teams, leadership characteristics and alignment with national systems and priorities may influence outcomes of quality improvement collaboratives, but the strength and quality of the evidence is weak. Participation in quality improvement collaborative activities may improve health professionals' knowledge, problem-solving skills and attitude; teamwork; shared leadership and habits for improvement. Interaction across quality improvement teams may generate normative pressure and opportunities for capacity building and peer recognition.

CONCLUSION

Our review offers a novel programme theory to unpack the complexity of quality improvement collaboratives by exploring the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes. There remains a need for greater use of behaviour change and organisational psychology theory to improve design, adaptation and evaluation of the collaborative quality improvement approach and to test its effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine whether certain contextual factors related to capacity should be a precondition to the quality improvement collaborative approach and to test the emerging programme theory using rigorous research designs.

Evaluation of the Safe Care, Saving Lives (SCSL) quality improvement collaborative for neonatal health in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: a study protocol

Background: The collaborative quality improvement approach proposed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has the potential to improve coverage of evidence-based maternal and newborn health practices. The Safe Care, Saving Lives initiative supported the implementation of 20 evidence-based maternal and newborn care practices, targeting labour wards and neonatal care units in 85 public and private hospitals in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India.

Objective: We present a protocol for the evaluation of this programme which aims to (a) estimate the effect of the initiative on evidence-based care practices and mortality; (b) evaluate the mechanisms leading to changes in adherence to evidence-based practices, and their relationship with contextual factors; (c) explore the feasibility of scaling-up the approach.

Methods: The mixed-method evaluation is based on a plausibility design nested within a phased implementation. The 29 non-randomly selected hospitals comprising wave II of the programme were compared to the 31 remaining hospitals where the quality improvement approach started later. We assessed mortality and adherence to evidence-based practices at baseline and endline using abstraction of registers, checklists, observations and interviews in intervention and comparison hospitals. We also explored the mechanisms and drivers of change in adherence to evidence-based practices. Qualitative methods investigated the mechanisms of change in purposefully selected case study hospitals. A readiness assessment complemented the analysis of what works and why. We used a difference-in-difference approach to estimate the effects of the intervention on mortality and coverage. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.

Discussion: This is the first quality improvement collaborative targeting neonatal health in secondary and tertiary hospitals in a middle-income country linked to a government health insurance scheme. Our process evaluation is theory driven and will refine hypotheses about how this quality improvement approach contributes to institutionalization of evidence-based practices.

Care practices and neonatal survival in 52 neonatal intensive care units in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.