Kumar Meghan Bruce, Madan Jason J, Achieng Maryline Mireku, Limato Ralalicia, Ndima Sozinho, Kea Aschenaki Z, Chikaphupha Kingsley Rex, Barasa Edwine, Taegtmeyer Miriam
Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Center for Humanitarian Emergencies, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Jul 8;4(4):e001390. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001390. eCollection 2019.
Countries aspiring to universal health coverage view close-to-community (CTC) providers as a low-cost means of increasing coverage. However, due to lack of coordination and unreliable funding, the quality of large-scale CTC healthcare provision is highly variable and routine data about service quality are not trustworthy. Quality improvement (QI) approaches are a means of addressing these issues, yet neither the costs nor the budget impact of integrating QI approaches into CTC programme costs have been assessed.
This paper examines the costs and budget impact of integrating QI into existing CTC health programmes in five countries (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) between 2015 and 2017. The intervention involved: (1) QI team formation; (2) Phased training interspersed with supportive supervision; which resulted in (3) QI teams independently collecting and analysing data to conduct QI interventions. Project costs were collected using an ingredients approach from a health systems perspective. Based on project costs, costs of local adoption of the intervention were modelled under three implementation scenarios.
Annualised economic unit costs ranged from $62 in Mozambique to $254 in Ethiopia per CTC provider supervised, driven by the context, type of community health model and the intensity of the intervention. The budget impact of Ministry-led QI for community health is estimated at 0.53% or less of the general government expenditure on health in all countries (and below 0.03% in three of the five countries).
CTC provision is a key component of healthcare delivery in many settings, so QI has huge potential impact. The impact is difficult to establish conclusively, but as a first step we have provided evidence to assess affordability of QI for community health. Further research is needed to assess whether QI can achieve the level of benefits that would justify the required investment.
致力于实现全民健康覆盖的国家将社区附近(CTC)医疗服务提供者视为扩大覆盖范围的低成本途径。然而,由于缺乏协调以及资金不可靠,大规模 CTC 医疗服务的质量差异很大,且有关服务质量的常规数据也不可信。质量改进(QI)方法是解决这些问题的一种手段,但将 QI 方法纳入 CTC 项目成本的成本及预算影响均未得到评估。
本文研究了 2015 年至 2017 年期间在五个国家(埃塞俄比亚、印度尼西亚、肯尼亚、马拉维、莫桑比克)将 QI 纳入现有 CTC 健康项目的成本及预算影响。干预措施包括:(1)组建 QI 团队;(2)穿插支持性监督的分阶段培训;这导致(3)QI 团队独立收集和分析数据以开展 QI 干预。从卫生系统角度采用成分法收集项目成本。基于项目成本,在三种实施情景下对当地采用该干预措施的成本进行了建模。
每个受监督的 CTC 医疗服务提供者的年化经济单位成本从莫桑比克的 62 美元到埃塞俄比亚的 254 美元不等,这受到背景、社区健康模式类型以及干预强度的影响。在所有国家,由卫生部主导的社区健康 QI 的预算影响估计占政府卫生总支出的 0.53%或更低(在五个国家中的三个国家低于 0.03%)。
在许多情况下,CTC 服务是医疗服务提供的关键组成部分,因此 QI 具有巨大的潜在影响。虽然难以最终确定其影响,但作为第一步,我们已提供证据来评估社区健康 QI 的可承受性。还需要进一步研究来评估 QI 是否能够实现足以证明所需投资合理的效益水平。