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

Mapping the processes and information flows of a prehospital emergency care system in Rwanda: a process mapping exercise

OBJECTIVE

A vital component of a prehospital emergency care system is getting an injured patient to the right hospital at the right time. Process and information flow mapping are recognised methods to show where efficiencies can be made. We aimed to understand the process and information flows used by the prehospital emergency service in transporting community emergencies in Rwanda in order to identify areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Two facilitated process/information mapping workshops were conducted. Process maps were produced in real time during discussions and shared with participants for their agreement. They were further validated by field observations.

SETTING

The study took place in two prehospital care settings serving predominantly rural and predominantly urban patients.

PARTICIPANTS

24 healthcare professionals from various cadres. Field observations were done on 49 emergencies across both sites.

RESULTS

Two maps were produced, and four main process stages were described: (1) call triage by the dispatch/call centre team, (2) scene triage by the ambulance team, (3) patient monitoring by the ambulance team on the way to the health facility and (4) handover process at the health facility. The first key finding was that the rural site had multiple points of entry into the system for emergency patients, whereas the urban system had one point of entry (the national emergency number); processes were otherwise similar between sites. The second was that although large amounts of information were collected to inform decision-making about which health facility to transfer patients to, participants found it challenging to articulate the intellectual process by which they used this to make decisions; guidelines were not used for decision-making.

DISCUSSION

We have identified several areas of the prehospital care processes where there can be efficiencies. To make efficiencies in the decision-making process and produce a standard approach for all patients will require protocolising care pathways.

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.