First do no harm: practitioners' ability to 'diagnose' system weaknesses and improve safety is a critical initial step in improving care quality

Barriers and enablers of quality high-acuity neonatal care in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a synthesis of qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in sub-Saharan Africa face limited resources and systemic challenges, resulting in poorer quality care, higher infant mortality, and dissatisfaction among both patients and healthcare workers. This review aims to bridge the knowledge gap by identifying and analysing the key barriers and enablers affecting quality care, informing interventions to improve patient outcomes and overall NICU effectiveness in this critical region.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will search and gather data from a variety of databases, including JBI Database, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCO, EMBASE, PEDro, POPLINE, Proquest, OpenGrey (SIGLE), Google Scholar, Google, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and HINARI. The review will also include unpublished studies and grey literature from a variety of sources. This review will only include qualitative and mixed-methods studies that explore the barriers and enablers of quality care for high-acuity neonates using qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be used by two independent reviewers to critically appraise the eligible studies. Any disagreements that arise will be resolved through discussion. Qualitative research findings will be pooled using the meta-aggregation approach in QARI software, where possible. Only unequivocal and credible findings will be included in the synthesis. If textual pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review does not require ethical clearance, and the findings will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders to ensure the widest possible outreach and impact.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023473134.

Receive, Sustain, and Flow: A simple heuristic for facilitating the identification and treatment of critically ill patients during their hospital journeys

Background

Hospital patients can become critically ill anywhere in a hospital but their survival is affected by problems of identification and adequate, timely, treatment. This is issue of particular concern in lower middle-income countries' (LMICs) hospitals where specialised units are scarce and severely under-resourced. "Cross-sectional" approaches to improving narrow, specific aspects of care will not attend to issues that affect patients' care across the length of their experience. A simpler approach to understanding key issues across the "hospital journey" could help to deliver life-saving treatments to those patients who need it, wherever they are in the facility.

Methods

We carried out 31 narrative interviews with frontline health workers in five Kenyan and five Tanzanian hospitals from November 2020 to December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. We also followed 12 patient hospital journeys, through the course of treatment of very sick patients admitted to the hospitals we studied.

Results

Our research explores gaps in hospital systems that result in lapses in effective, continuous care across the hospital journeys of patients in Tanzania and Kenya. We organise these factors according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) approach to patient safety, which we extend to explore how these issues affect patients across the course of care. We discern three repeating, recursive phases we term Receive, Sustain, and Flow. We use this heuristic to show how gaps and weaknesses in service provision affect critically ill patients' hospital journeys.

Conclusion

Receive, Sustain, and Flow offers a heuristic for hospital management to identify and ameliorate limitations in human and technical resources for the care of the critically ill.

Hospital care for critical illness in low-resource settings: lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic

Care for the critically ill patients is often considered synonymous with a hospital having an intensive care unit. However, a focus on Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) may obviate the need for much intensive care. Severe COVID-19 presented a specific critical care challenge while also being an exemplar of critical illness in general. Our multidisciplinary team conducted research in Kenya and Tanzania on hospitals' ability to provide EECC as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. Important basic inputs were often lacking, especially sufficient numbers of skilled health workers. However, we learnt that higher scores on resource readiness scales were often misleading, as resources were often insufficient or not functional in all the clinical areas they are needed. By following patient journeys, through interviews and group discussions, we revealed gaps in timeliness, continuity and delivery of care. Generic challenges in transitions between departments were identified in the receipt of critically ill patients, the ability to sustain monitoring and treatment and preparation for any subsequent transition. While the global response to COVID-19 focused initially on providing technologies and training, first ventilators and later oxygen, organisational and procedural challenges seemed largely ignored. Yet, they may even be exacerbated by new technologies. Efforts to improve care for the critically ill patients, which is a complex process, must include a whole system and whole facility view spanning all areas of patients' care and their transitions and not be focused on a single location providing 'critical care'. We propose a five-part strategy to support the system changes needed.

Variation in missed doses and reasons for discontinuation of anti-tuberculosis drugs during hospital treatment for drug-resistant tuberculosis in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Updated World Health Organization (WHO) treatment guidelines prioritize all-oral drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) regimens. Several poorly tolerated drugs, such as amikacin and para-aminosalicylic acid (PAS), remain treatment options for DR-TB in WHO-recommended longer regimens as Group C drugs. Incomplete treatment with anti-TB drugs increases the risk of treatment failure, relapse, and death. We determined whether missed doses of individual anti-TB drugs, and reasons for their discontinuation, varied in closely monitored hospital settings prior to the 2020 WHO DR-TB treatment guideline updates.

METHODS

We collected retrospective data on adult patients with microbiologically confirmed DR-TB between 2008 and 2015 who were selected for a study of acquired drug resistance in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Medical records through mid-2017 were reviewed. Patients received directly observed treatment during hospitalization at specialized DR-TB hospitals. Incomplete treatment with individual anti-TB drugs, defined as the failure to take medication as prescribed, regardless of reason, was determined by comparing percent missed doses, stratified by HIV status and DR-TB regimen. We applied a generalized mixed effects model.

RESULTS

Among 242 patients, 131 (54%) were male, 97 (40%) were living with HIV, 175 (72%) received second-line treatment prior to first hospitalization, and 191 (79%) died during the study period. At initial hospitalization, 134 (55%) patients had Mycobacterium tuberculosis with resistance to rifampicin and isoniazid (multidrug-resistant TB [MDR-TB]) without resistance to ofloxacin or amikacin, and 102 (42%) had resistance to ofloxacin and/or amikacin. Most patients (129 [53%]) had multiple hospitalizations and DST changes occurred in 146 (60%) by the end of their last hospital discharge. Incomplete treatment was significantly higher for amikacin (18%), capreomycin (18%), PAS (17%) and kanamycin (16%) than other DR-TB drugs (P<0.001), including ethionamide (8%), moxifloxacin (7%), terizidone (7%), ethambutol (7%), and pyrazinamide (6%). Among the most frequently prescribed drugs, second-line injectables had the highest rates of discontinuation for adverse events (range 0.56-1.02 events per year follow-up), while amikacin, PAS and ethionamide had the highest rates of discontinuation for patient refusal (range 0.51-0.68 events per year follow-up). Missed doses did not differ according to HIV status or anti-TB drug combinations.

CONCLUSION

We found that incomplete treatment for second-line injectables and PAS during hospitalization was higher than for other anti-TB drugs. To maximize treatment success, interventions to improve person-centered care and mitigate adverse events may be necessary in cases when PAS or amikacin (2020 WHO recommended Group C drugs) are needed.

First do no harm overlooked: Analysis of COVID-19 clinical guidance for maternal and newborn care from 101 countries shows breastfeeding widely undermined

Background

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) published clinical guidance for the care of newborns of mothers with COVID-19. Weighing the available evidence on SARS-CoV-2 infection against the well-established harms of maternal-infant separation, the WHO recommended maternal-infant proximity and breastfeeding even in the presence of maternal infection. Since then, the WHO's approach has been validated by further research. However, early in the pandemic there was poor global alignment with the WHO recommendations.

Methods

We assessed guidance documents collected in November and December 2020 from 101 countries and two regional agencies on the care of newborns of mothers with COVID-19 for alignment with the WHO recommendations. Recommendations considered were: (1) skin-to-skin contact; (2) early initiation of breastfeeding; (3) rooming-in; (4) direct breastfeeding; (5) provision of expressed breastmilk; (6) provision of donor human milk; (7) wet nursing; (8) provision of breastmilk substitutes; (9) relactation; (10) psychological support for separated mothers; and (11) psychological support for separated infants.

Results

In less than one-quarter of country guidance were the three key breastfeeding facilitation practices of skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and direct breastfeeding recommended. Donor human milk was recommended in under one-quarter of guidance. Psychological support for mothers separated from their infants was recommended in 38%. Few countries recommended relactation, wet nursing, or psychological support for infants separated from mothers. In three-quarters of country guidance, expressed breastmilk for infants unable to directly breastfeed was recommended. The WHO and the United Kingdom's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were each cited by half of country guidance documents with the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention directly or indirectly cited by 40%.

Conclusion

Despite the WHO recommendations, many COVID-19 maternal and newborn care guidelines failed to recommend skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in, and breastfeeding as the standard of care. Irregular guidance updates and the discordant, but influential, guidance from the United States Centers for Disease Control may have been contributory. It appeared that once recommendations were made for separation or against breastfeeding they were difficult to reverse. In the absence of quality evidence on necessity, recommendations against breastfeeding should not be made in disease epidemics.

Improving facility-based care: eliciting tacit knowledge to advance intervention design

Attention has turned to improving the quality and safety of healthcare within health facilities to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity. Interventions should be tested in health system environments that can support their adoption if successful. To be successful, interventions often require changes in multiple behaviours making their consequences unpredictable. Here, we focus on this challenge of change at the mesolevel or microlevel. Drawing on multiple insights from theory and our own empirical work, we highlight the importance of engaging managers, senior and frontline staff and potentially patients to explore foundational questions examining three core resource areas. These span the physical or material resources available, workforce capacity and capability and team and organisational relationships. Deficits in all these resource areas may need to be addressed to achieve success. We also argue that as inertia is built into the complex social and human systems characterising healthcare facilities that thought on how to mobilise five motive forces is needed to help achieve change. These span goal alignment and ownership, leadership for change, empowering key actors, promoting responsive planning and procurement and learning for transformation. Our aim is to bridge the theory-practice gap and offer an entry point for practical discussions to elicit the critical tacit and contextual knowledge needed to design interventions. We hope that this may improve the chances that interventions are successful and so contribute to better facility-based care and outcomes while contributing to the development of learning health systems.

Enhancing psychological safety in mental health services

Background

Psychological safety—speaking up about ideas and concerns, free from interpersonal risk—are essential to the high-risk environment, such as healthcare settings. Psychologically safe working is particularly important in mental health where recovery-oriented approaches rely on collaborative efforts of interprofessional teams to make complex decisions. Much research focuses on antecedents and outcomes associated with psychological safety, but little focus on the practical steps for how to increase psychological safety across and at different levels of a healthcare organisation.

Aims

We explore how a mental health organisation creates an organisation-wide plan for building the foundations of mental health and how to enhance psychological safety.

Methods

This review encompasses strategies across psychological safety and organisational culture change to increase psychological safety at an individual, team and organisational level.

Summary

We set out a comprehensive overview of the types of strategies and interventions for increasing the ethos of psychological safety and setting the foundations for delivering an organisation-wide programme on this topic. We also provide a list of key targeted areas in mental health that would maximally benefit from increasing psychological safety—both in clinical and non-clinical settings.

Conclusions

Psychological safety is a crucial determinant of safe and effective patient care in mental health services. This paper provides the key steps and considerations, creating a large-scale programme in psychological safety with a focus on mental health and drawing from the current literature, providing concrete steps for how our current understanding of psychological safety into practice.

How to do no harm: empowering local leaders to make care safer in low-resource settings

In a companion paper, we showed how local hospital leaders could assess systems and identify key safety concerns and targets for system improvement. In the present paper, we consider how these leaders might implement practical, low-cost interventions to improve safety. Our focus is on making immediate safety improvements both to directly improve patient care and as a foundation for advancing care in the longer-term. We describe a 'portfolio' approach to safety improvement in four broad categories: prioritising critical processes, such as checking drug doses; strengthening the overall system of care, for example, by introducing multiprofessional handovers; control of known risks, such as only using continuous positive airway pressure when appropriate conditions are met; and enhancing detection and response to hazardous situations, such as introducing brief team meetings to identify and respond to immediate threats and challenges. Local clinical leaders and managers face numerous challenges in delivering safe care but, if given sufficient support, they are nevertheless in a position to bring about major improvements. Skills in improving safety and quality should be recognised as equivalent to any other form of (sub)specialty training and as an essential element of any senior clinical or management role. National professional organisations need to promote appropriate education and provide coaching, mentorship and support to local leaders.

Employing learning health system principles to advance research on severe neonatal and paediatric illness in Kenya

We have worked to develop a Clinical Information Network (CIN) in Kenya as an early form of learning health systems (LHS) focused on paediatric and neonatal care that now spans 22 hospitals. CIN's aim was to examine important outcomes of hospitalisation at scale, identify and ultimately solve practical problems of service delivery, drive improvements in quality and test interventions. By including multiple routine settings in research, we aimed to promote generalisability of findings and demonstrate potential efficiencies derived from LHS. We illustrate the nature and range of research CIN has supported over the past 7 years as a form of LHS. Clinically, this has largely focused on common, serious paediatric illnesses such as pneumonia, malaria and diarrhoea with dehydration with recent extensions to neonatal illnesses. CIN also enables examination of the quality of care, for example that provided to children with severe malnutrition and the challenges encountered in routine settings in adopting simple technologies (pulse oximetry) and more advanced diagnostics (eg, Xpert MTB/RIF). Although regular feedback to hospitals has been associated with some improvements in quality data continue to highlight system challenges that undermine provision of basic, quality care (eg, poor access to blood glucose testing and routine microbiology). These challenges include those associated with increased mortality risk (eg, delays in blood transfusion). Using the same data the CIN platform has enabled conduct of randomised trials and supports malaria vaccine and most recently COVID-19 surveillance. Employing LHS principles has meant engaging front-line workers, clinical managers and national stakeholders throughout. Our experience suggests LHS can be developed in low and middle-income countries that efficiently enable contextually appropriate research and contribute to strengthening of health services and research systems.