Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: The Indian government supports both public- and private-sector provision of hospital care for neonates: neonatal intensive care is offered in public facilities alongside a rising number of private-for-profit providers. However, there are few published reports about mortality levels and care practices in these facilities. We aimed to assess care practices, causes of admission, and outcomes from neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in public secondary and private tertiary hospitals and both public and private medical colleges enrolled in a quality improvement collaborative in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh-2 Indian states with a respective population of 35 and 50 million. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional study between 30 May and 26 August 2016 as part of a baseline evaluation in 52 consenting hospitals (26 public secondary hospitals, 5 public medical colleges, 15 private tertiary hospitals, and 6 private medical colleges) offering neonatal intensive care. We assessed the availability of staff and services, adherence to evidence-based practices at admission, and case fatality after admission to the NICU using a range of tools, including facility assessment, observations of admission, and abstraction of registers and telephone interviews after discharge. Our analysis is adjusted for clustering and weighted for caseload at the hospital level and presents findings stratified by type and ownership of hospitals. In total, the NICUs included just over 3,000 admissions per month. Staffing and infrastructure provision were largely according to government guidelines, except that only a mean of 1 but not the recommended 4 paediatricians were working in public secondary NICUs per 10 beds. On admission, all neonates admitted to private hospitals had auscultation (100%, 19 of 19 observations) but only 42% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25%-62%, p-value for difference is 0.361) in public secondary hospitals. The most common single cause of admission was preterm birth (25%) followed by jaundice (23%). Case-fatality rates at age 28 days after admission to a NICU were 4% (95% CI 2%-8%), 15% (9%-24%), 4% (2%-8%) and 2% (1%-5%) (Chi-squared p = 0.001) in public secondary hospitals, public medical colleges, private tertiary hospitals, and private medical colleges, respectively, according to facility registers. Case fatality according to postdischarge telephone interviews found rates of 12% (95% CI 7%-18%) for public secondary hospitals. Roughly 6% of admitted neonates were referred to another facility. Outcome data were missing for 27% and 8% of admissions to private tertiary hospitals and private medical colleges. Our study faced the limitation of missing data due to incomplete documentation. Further generalizability was limited due to the small sample size among private facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest differences in quality of neonatal intensive care and 28-day survival between the different types of hospitals, although comparison of outcomes is complicated by differences in the case mix and referral practices between hospitals. Uniform reporting of outcomes and risk factors across the private and public sectors is required to assess the benefits for the population of mixed-care provision.

BACKGROUND: The collaborative quality improvement approach proposed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has the potential to improve coverage of evidence-based maternal and newborn health practices. The Safe Care, Saving Lives initiative supported the implementation of 20 evidence-based maternal and newborn care practices, targeting labour wards and neonatal care units in 85 public and private hospitals in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. OBJECTIVE: We present a protocol for the evaluation of this programme which aims to (a) estimate the effect of the initiative on evidence-based care practices and mortality; (b) evaluate the mechanisms leading to changes in adherence to evidence-based practices, and their relationship with contextual factors; (c) explore the feasibility of scaling-up the approach. METHODS: The mixed-method evaluation is based on a plausibility design nested within a phased implementation. The 29 non-randomly selected hospitals comprising wave II of the programme were compared to the 31 remaining hospitals where the quality improvement approach started later. We assessed mortality and adherence to evidence-based practices at baseline and endline using abstraction of registers, checklists, observations and interviews in intervention and comparison hospitals. We also explored the mechanisms and drivers of change in adherence to evidence-based practices. Qualitative methods investigated the mechanisms of change in purposefully selected case study hospitals. A readiness assessment complemented the analysis of what works and why. We used a difference-in-difference approach to estimate the effects of the intervention on mortality and coverage. Thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data. DISCUSSION: This is the first quality improvement collaborative targeting neonatal health in secondary and tertiary hospitals in a middle-income country linked to a government health insurance scheme. Our process evaluation is theory driven and will refine hypotheses about how this quality improvement approach contributes to institutionalization of evidence-based practices.