Translating international guidelines for use in routine maternal and neonatal healthcare quality measurement

Factors that influence the implementation of (inter)nationally endorsed health and social care standards: a systematic review and meta-summary

BACKGROUND

Health and social care standards have been widely adopted as a quality improvement intervention. Standards are typically made up of evidence-based statements that describe safe, high-quality, person-centred care as an outcome or process of care delivery. They involve stakeholders at multiple levels and multiple activities across diverse services. As such, challenges exist with their implementation. Existing literature relating to standards has focused on accreditation and regulation programmes and there is limited evidence to inform implementation strategies specifically tailored to support the implementation of standards. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe the most frequently reported enablers and barriers to implementing (inter)nationally endorsed standards, in order to inform the selection of strategies that can optimise their implementation.

METHODS

Database searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SocINDEX, Google Scholar, OpenGrey and GreyNet International, complemented by manual searches of standard-setting bodies' websites and hand searching references of included studies. Primary qualitative, quantitative descriptive and mixed methods studies that reported enablers and barriers to implementing nationally or internationally endorsed standards were included. Two researchers independently screened search outcomes and conducted data extraction, methodological appraisal and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) assessments. An inductive analysis was conducted using Sandelowski's meta-summary and measured frequency effect sizes (FES) for enablers and barriers.

RESULTS

4072 papers were retrieved initially with 35 studies ultimately included. Twenty-two thematic statements describing enablers were created from 322 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. Twenty-four thematic statements describing barriers were created from 376 descriptive findings and grouped under six themes. The most prevalent enablers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: available support tools at local level (FES 55%); training courses to increase awareness and knowledge of the standards (FES 52%) and knowledge sharing and interprofessional collaborations (FES 45%). The most prevalent barriers with CERQual assessments graded as high included: a lack of knowledge of what standards are (FES 63%), staffing constraints (FES 46%), insufficient funds (FES 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

The most frequently reported enablers related to available support tools, education and shared learning. The most frequently reported barriers related to a lack of knowledge of standards, staffing issues and insufficient funds. Incorporating these findings into the selection of implementation strategies will enhance the likelihood of effective implementation of standards and subsequently, improve safe, quality care for people using health and social care services.

Improving WHO's understanding of WHO guideline uptake and use in Member States: a scoping review

Background

WHO publishes public health and clinical guidelines to guide Member States in achieving better health outcomes. Furthermore, WHO’s Thirteenth General Programme of Work for 2019–2023 prioritizes strengthening its normative functional role and uptake of normative and standard-setting products, including guidelines at the country level. Therefore, understanding WHO guideline uptake by the Member States, particularly the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is of utmost importance for the organization and scholarship.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using a comprehensive search strategy to include published literature in English between 2007 and 2020. The review was conducted between May and June 2021. We searched five electronic databases including CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and Scopus. We also searched Google Scholar as a supplementary source. The review adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews) guidelines for reporting the searches, screening and identification of evaluation studies from the literature. A narrative synthesis of the evidence around key barriers and challenges for WHO guideline uptake in LMICs is thematically presented.

Results

The scoping review included 48 studies, and the findings were categorized into four themes: (1) lack of national legislation, regulations and policy coherence, (2) inadequate experience, expertise and training of healthcare providers for guideline uptake, (3) funding limitations for guideline uptake and use, and (4) inadequate healthcare infrastructure for guideline compliance. These challenges were situated in the Member States’ health systems. The findings suggest that governance was often weak within the existing health systems amongst most of the LMICs studied, as was the guidance provided by WHO’s guidelines on governance requirements. This challenge was further exacerbated by a lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms for uptake and implementation of guidelines. In addition, the WHO guidelines themselves were either unclear and were technically challenging for some health conditions; however, WHO guidelines were primarily used as a reference by Member States when they developed their national guidelines.

Conclusions

The challenges identified reflect the national health systems’ (in)ability to allocate, implement and monitor the guidelines. Historically this is beyond the remit of WHO, but Member States could benefit from WHO implementation guidance on requirements and needs for successful uptake and use of WHO guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00899-y.

Towards a harmonised framework for developing quality of care indicators for global health: a scoping review of existing conceptual and methodological practices

OBJECTIVES

Despite significant advances in the science of quality of care measurement over the last decade, approaches to developing quality of care indicators for global health priorities are not clearly defined. We conducted a scoping review of concepts and methods used to develop quality of healthcare indicators to better inform ongoing efforts towards a more harmonised approach to quality of care indicator development in global health.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases, grey literature and references for articles on developing quality of care indicators for routine monitoring in all healthcare settings and populations, published in English between 2010 and 2020. We used well-established methods for article screening and selection, data extraction and management. Results were summarised using a descriptive analysis and a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

The 221 selected articles were largely from high-income settings (89%), particularly the USA (46%), Canada (9%), UK (9%) and Europe (17%). Quality of care indicators were developed mainly for healthcare providers (56%), for benchmarking or quality assurance (37%) and quality improvement (29%), in hospitals (32%) and primary care (26%), across many diseases. The terms 'quality indicator' and 'quality measure' were the most frequently encountered terms (50% and 21%, respectively). Systematic approaches for quality of care indicator development emerged within national quality of care systems or through cross-country collaborations in high-income settings. Maternal, neonatal and child health (33%), mental health (26%) and primary care (57%) studies applied most components of systematic approaches, but not consistently or rigorously.

DISCUSSION

The current evidence shows variations in concepts and approaches to developing quality of care indicators, with development and application mainly in high-income countries.

CONCLUSION

Additional efforts are needed to propose 'best-practice' conceptual frameworks and methods for developing quality of care indicators to improve their utility in global health measurement.