Deconcentrating regulation in low- and middle-income country health systems: a proposed ambidextrous solution to problems with professional regulation for doctors and nurses in Kenya and Uganda

BACKGROUND

Regulation can improve professional practice and patient care, but is often weakly implemented and enforced in health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Taking a de-centred and frontline perspective, we examine national regulatory actors' and health professionals' views and experiences of health professional regulation in Kenya and Uganda and discuss how it might be improved in LMICs more generally.

METHODS

We conducted large-scale research on professional regulation for doctors and nurses (including midwives) in Uganda and Kenya during 2019-2021. We interviewed 29 national regulatory stakeholders and 47 subnational regulatory actors, doctors, and nurses. We then ran a national survey of Kenyan and Ugandan doctors and nurses, which received 3466 responses. We thematically analysed qualitative data, conducted an exploratory factor analysis of survey data, and validated findings in four focus group discussions.

RESULTS

Kenyan and Ugandan regulators were generally perceived as resource-constrained, remote, and out of touch with health professionals. This resulted in weak regulation that did little to prevent malpractice and inadequate professional education and training. However, interviewees were positive about online licencing and regulation where they had relationships with accessible regulators. Building on these positive findings, we propose an ambidextrous approach to improving regulation in LMIC health systems, which we term deconcentrating regulation. This involves developing online licencing and streamlining regulatory administration to make efficiency savings, freeing regulatory resources. These resources should then be used to develop connected subnational regulatory offices, enhance relations between regulators and health professionals, and address problems at local level.

CONCLUSION

Professional regulation for doctors and nurses in Kenya and Uganda is generally perceived as weak. Yet these professionals are more positive about online licencing and regulation where they have relationships with regulators. Building on these positive findings, we propose deconcentrating regulation as a solution to regulatory problems in LMICs. However, we note resource, cultural and political barriers to its effective implementation.

How much does effective health facility inspection cost? An analysis of the economic costs of Kenya’s Joint Health Inspection innovations

Background

In most low- and middle-income countries, health facility regulation is fragmented, ineffective and under-resourced. The Kenyan Government piloted an innovative regulatory regime involving Joint Health Inspections (JHI) which synthesized requirements across multiple regulatory agencies; increased inspection frequency; digitized inspection tools; and introduced public display of regulatory results. The pilot significantly improved regulatory compliance. We calculated the costs of the development and implementation of the JHI pilot and modelled the costs of national scale-up in Kenya.

Methods

We calculated the economic costs of three phases: JHI checklist development, start-up activities, and first year of implementation, from the providers’ perspective in three pilot counties. Data collection involved extraction from expenditure records and key informant interviews. The annualized costs of JHI were calculated by adding annualized development and start-up costs to annual implementation costs. National level scale-up costs were also modelled and compared to those of current standard inspections.

Results

The total economic cost of the JHI pilot was USD 1,125,600 (2017 USD), with the development phase accounting for 19%, start-up 43% and the first year of implementation 38%. The annualized economic cost was USD 519,287, equivalent to USD 206 per health facility visit and USD 311 per inspection completed. Scale up to the national level, while replacing international advisors with local staff, was estimated to cost approximately USD 4,823,728, equivalent to USD 103 per health facility visit and USD 155 per inspection completed. This compares to an estimated USD 86,997 per year (USD 113 per inspection completed) spent on a limited number of inspections prior to JHI.

Conclusion

Information on costs is essential to consider affordability and value for money of regulatory interventions. This is the first study we are aware of costing health facility inspections in sub-Saharan Africa. It has informed debates on appropriate inspection design and potential efficiency gains. It will also serve as an important benchmark for future studies, and a key input into cost-effectiveness analyses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08727-3.

What Lies Behind Successful Regulation? A Qualitative Evaluation of Pilot Implementation of Kenya's Health Facility Inspection Reforms

BACKGROUND

Health facility regulation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is generally weak, with potentially serious consequences for safety and quality. Innovative regulatory reforms were piloted in three Kenyan counties including: a Joint Health Inspection Checklist (JHIC) synthesizing requirements across multiple regulatory agencies; increased inspection frequency; allocating facilities to compliance categories which determined warnings, sanctions and/or time to re-inspection; and public display of regulatory results. The reforms substantially increased inspection scores compared with control facilities. We developed lessons for future regulatory policy from this pilot by identifying key factors that facilitated or hindered its implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to understand views and experiences of actors involved in the one-year pilot. We interviewed 77 purposively selected staff from the national, county and facility levels. Data were analyzed using the framework approach, identifying facilitating/hindering factors at the facility, inspection system, and health system levels.

RESULTS

The joint health inspections (JHIs) were generally viewed as fair, objective and transparent, which enhanced their perceived legitimacy. Interactions with inspectors were described as friendly and supportive, in contrast to the punitive culture of previous inspections when bribery had been common. Inspector training and use of an electronic checklist were strongly praised. However, practical challenges with transport, route planning and budgets highlighted the critical nature of strong logistical management. The effectiveness of inspection in improving compliance was hampered by limitations in related systems, particularly facility licensing, enforcement of closures and, in the public sector, control of funds. However, an inclusive reform development process had led to high buy-in across regulatory agencies which was key to the system's success.

CONCLUSION

Effective facility inspection involves more than "hardware" such as checklists, protocols and training. Cultural, relational and institutional "software" are also crucial for legitimacy, feasibility of implementation and enforceability, and should be carefully integrated into regulatory reforms.

Healthcare clinic and pharmacy chains in Kenya and Nigeria: A qualitative exploration of the opportunities and risks they present for healthcare regulatory systems

BACKGROUND

Regulating fragmented healthcare markets is a major challenge in low- and middle-income countries. Although a recent transformation towards consolidation could improve regulatory efficiency, there are concerns over risks to client safety and market functioning. We investigated market consolidation through the emergence of clinic and pharmacy chains in Kenya and Nigeria and explored resultant regulatory opportunities and risks.

METHODS

The study was conducted in Nairobi Kenya and Abuja Nigeria. Data were collected through document reviews and 26 interviews with chain operators, professional associations and regulators between September and December 2018. A thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We characterised two broad types of chains: organic chains that started as single business locations and expanded gradually, and investor-driven chains that expanded rapidly following external capital injection. In both countries, chains and independents were regulated similarly, with regulators failing to both capitalize on opportunities and guard against risks. For instance, chains' brand visibility and centralised management systems made them easier to regulate and more suitable for self-regulation. On the other hand, chains were perceived to pose the risks of market dominance, commercialisation of healthcare, and regulatory capture.

CONCLUSION

As healthcare chains expand, regulators should build on opportunities presented and guard against emerging risks.

Identifying the impact of COVID-19 on health systems and lessons for future emergency preparedness: A stakeholder analysis in Kenya

The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has triggered a public health and economic crisis in high and low resource settings since the beginning of 2020. With the first case being discovered on 12th March 2020, Kenya has responded by using health and non-health strategies to mitigate the direct and indirect impact of the disease on its population. However, this has had positive and negative implications for the country's overall health system. This paper aimed to understand the pandemic's impact and develop lessons for future response by identifying the key challenges and opportunities Kenya faced during the pandemic. We conducted a qualitative study with 15 key informants, purposefully sampled for in-depth interviews from September 2020 to February 2021. We conducted direct content analysis of the transcripts to understand the stakeholder's views and perceptions of how COVID-19 has affected the Kenyan healthcare system. Most of the respondents noted that Kenya's initial response was relatively good, especially in controlling the pandemic with the resources it had at the time. This included relaying information to citizens, creating technical working groups and fostering multisectoral collaboration. However, concerns were raised regarding service disruption and impact on reproductive health, HIV, TB, and non-communicable diseases services; poor coordination between the national and county governments; shortage of personal protective equipment and testing kits; and strain of human resources for health. Effective pandemic preparedness for future response calls for improved investments across the health system building blocks, including; human resources for health, financing, infrastructure, information, leadership, service delivery and medical products and technologies. These strategies will help build resilient health systems and improve self-reliance, especially for countries transitioning from donor aid such as Kenya in the event of a pandemic.

When technology precedes regulation: the challenges and opportunities of e-pharmacy in low-income and middle-income countries

The recent growth of medicine sales online represents a major disruption to pharmacy markets, with COVID-19 encouraging this trend further. While e-pharmacy businesses were initially the preserve of high-income countries, in the past decade they have been growing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Public health concerns associated with e-pharmacy include the sale of prescription-only medicines without a prescription and the sale of substandard and falsified medicines. There are also non-health-related risks such as consumer fraud and lack of data privacy. However, e-pharmacy may also have the potential to improve access to medicines. Drawing on existing literature and a set of key informant interviews in Kenya, Nigeria and India, we examine the e-pharmacy regulatory systems in LMICs. None of the study countries had yet enacted a regulatory framework specific to e-pharmacy. Key regulatory challenges included the lack of consensus on regulatory models, lack of regulatory capacity, regulating sales across borders and risks of over-regulation. However, e-pharmacy also presents opportunities to enhance medicine regulation—through consolidation in the sector, and the traceability and transparency that online records offer. The regulatory process needs to be adapted to keep pace with this dynamic landscape and exploit these possibilities. This will require exploration of a range of innovative regulatory options, collaboration with larger, more compliant businesses, and engagement with global regulatory bodies. A key first step must be ensuring that national regulators are equipped with the necessary awareness and technical expertise to actively oversee this e-pharmacy activity.