Linking implementation to outcomes: evaluation of a community-based breast and cervical cancer screening program

Perinatal mortality audits and reporting of perinatal deaths: systematic review of outcomes and barriers

BACKGROUND

Perinatal deaths are a devastating experience for all families and healthcare professionals involved. Audit of perinatal mortality (PNM) is essential to better understand the factors associated with perinatal death, to identify key deficiencies in healthcare provision and should be utilised to improve the quality of perinatal care. However, barriers exist to successful audit implementation and few countries have implemented national perinatal audit programs.

CONTENT

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and EBSCO host, including Medline, Academic Search Complete and CINAHL Plus databases for articles that were published from 1st January 2000. Articles evaluating perinatal mortality audits or audit implementation, identifying risk or care factors of perinatal mortality through audits, in middle and/or high-income countries were considered for inclusion in this review. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. Incomplete datasets, nonstandard audit methods and classifications, and inadequate staff training were highlighted as barriers to PNM reporting and audit implementation. Failure in timely detection and management of antenatal maternal and fetal conditions and late presentation or failure to escalate care were the most common substandard care factors identified through audit. Overall, recommendations for perinatal audit focused on standardised audit tools and training of staff. Overall, the implementation of audit recommendations remains unclear.

SUMMARY

This review highlights barriers to audit practices and emphasises the need for adequately trained staff to participate in regular audit that is standardised and thorough. To achieve the goal of reducing PNM, it is crucial that the audit cycle is completed with continuous re-evaluation of recommended changes.

Newborn Screening Programs and Sickle Cell Disease: A Public Health Services and Systems Approach

INTRODUCTION

Despite universal newborn screening (NBS), children in the U.S. continue to experience morbidity and mortality from sickle cell disease and related causes. Recognizing that assessments of public health services and systems can improve public health system performance and ultimately health outcomes, this study examined variations in NBS program activities for sickle cell disease.

METHODS

A mixed methods study included (1) a 2009 survey of NBS programs based on ten essential public health services (N=39 states with ten or more sickle cell births over a 3-year period) and (2) key informant interviews in 2011 with 13 states that had sufficient Phase 1 survey scores, black births, and variability in state legislation and geography. Key informants were from 13 NBS programs, 22 sickle cell treatment centers, and ten advocacy organizations. Analyses were conducted in 2009-2014.

RESULTS

Considerable variability exists across states in program activities and roles. More programs reported activities oriented to care of individuals-ensuring access to services, coordination, and provider education; fewer reported planning and analysis activities oriented to statewide policy development and system change. Numbers of activities were not related to the number of affected births. In-depth interviews identified opportunities to enhance activities that support statewide comprehensive systems of care.

CONCLUSIONS

NBS programs perform important public health roles that complement and enhance clinical services. Nationwide efforts are needed to enable NBS programs to strengthen population-based functions that are essential to ensuring quality of care for the entire population of children and families affected by sickle cell disease.

Variation in average costs among federally sponsored state-organized cancer detection programs: economies of scale?

BACKGROUND

Societal cost-effectiveness analysis and its variants help decision makers achieve an efficient allocation of resources across the set of all possible health interventions. Sometimes, however, decision makers are focused instead on the efficient allocation of resources within a particular intervention program that has already been implemented. This is especially true when the intervention is being delivered at several different sites. An analysis of average cost across program sites may help program officials to maximize the health benefits that can be achieved with limited resources. In this article, the authors present such an analysis, with special attention paid to the possible existence and implications of economies of scale.

METHODS

Focusing on federally sponsored, state-organized cancer detection programs, the authors modeled 19 state programs as productive processes and examined their average costs over a 2- to 5-year period of operation. They considered 3 alternative definitions of output: women served, screens performed, and conditions detected. Average federal costs and average total costs were estimated for each grant period. Multivariate regression analysis was used to help explain the variation in average costs.

RESULTS

The average cost estimates were distributed in a skewed pattern with the majority of observations falling close to the median and substantially below the mean. For all measures considered, average cost decreased as output expanded. This inverse relationship between average cost and output level persisted even after controlling for the effects of other predictors, suggesting the possible existence of economies of scale.

DISCUSSION

The potential existence of economies of scale calls into question the assumption of a constant average cost frequently made in economic analyses of proposed public health programs. It also implies that a) differences in output level should be taken into account when comparing operating efficiency across program sites; b) conclusions from societal cost-effectiveness analyses may depend on the level of output at which the programs are evaluated; c) cost projections could be inaccurate if they do not take into account the decrease in average cost that occurs as output expands; and d) gains might be possible if similar programs with limited output potential are integrated, perhaps through cost sharing.