Perioperative Care and the Importance of Continuous Quality Improvement—A Controlled Intervention Study in Three Tanzanian Hospitals

Introduction Surgical services are increasingly seen to reduce death and disability in Sub-Saharan Africa, where hospital-based mortality remains alarmingly high. This study explores two implementation approaches to improve the quality of perioperative care in a Tanzanian hospital. Effects were compared to a control group of two other hospitals in the region without intervention. Methods All hospitals conducted quality assessments with a Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Changes in immediate outcome indicators after one and two years were compared to final outcome indicators such as Anaesthetic Complication Rate and Surgical Case Fatality Rate. Results Immediate outcome indicators for Preoperative Care in the intervention hospital improved (52.5% in 2009; 84.2% in 2011, p<0.001). Postoperative Inpatient Care initially improved to then decline again (63.3% in 2009; 70% in 2010; 58.6% in 2011). In the control group, preoperative care declined from 50.8% (2009) to 32.8% (2011, p <0.001), while postoperative care did not significantly change. Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the intervention hospital declined (1.89% before intervention; 0.96% after intervention, p = 0.006). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the intervention hospital declined from 5.67% before intervention to 2.93% after intervention (p<0.0010). Surgical Case Fatality Rate in the control group was 4% before intervention and 3.8% after intervention (p = 0.411). Anaesthetic Complication Rate in the control group was not available. Discussion Immediate outcome indicators initially improved, while at the same time final outcome declined (Surgical Case Fatality, Anaesthetic Complication Rate). Compared to the control group, final outcome improved more in the intervention hospital, although the effect was not significant over the whole study period. Documentation of final outcome indicators seemed inconsistent. Immediate outcome indicators seem more helpful to steer the Continuous Quality Improvement program. Conclusion Specific interventions as part of Continuous Quality Improvement might lead to sustainable improvement of the quality of care, if embedded in a multi-faceted approach

The unmet need for Emergency Obstetric Care in Tanga Region, Tanzania

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Improving maternal health by reducing maternal mortality constitutes the fifth Millennium Development Goal and represents a key public health challenge in the United Republic of Tanzania. In response to the need to evaluate and monitor safe motherhood interventions, this study aims at assessing the coverage of obstetric care according to the Unmet Obstetric Need (UON) concept by obtaining information on indications for, and outcomes of, major obstetric interventions. Furthermore, we explore whether this concept can be operationalised at district level.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A two year study using the Unmet Obstetric Need concept was carried out in three districts in Tanga Region, Tanzania. Data was collected prospectively at all four hospitals in the region for every woman undergoing a major obstetric intervention, including indication and outcome. The concept was adapted to address differentials in access to emergency obstetric care between districts and between rural and urban areas. Based upon literature and expert consensus, a threshold of 2% of all deliveries was used to define the expected minimum requirement of major obstetric interventions performed for absolute maternal indications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Protocols covering 1,260 complicated deliveries were analysed. The percentage of major obstetric interventions carried out in response to an absolute maternal indication was only 71%; most major obstetric interventions (97%) were caesarean sections. The most frequent indication was cephalo-pelvic-disproportion (51%). The proportion of major obstetric interventions for absolute maternal indications performed amongst women living in urban areas was 1.8% of all deliveries, while in rural areas it was only 0.7%. The high proportion (8.3%) of negative maternal outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as the high perinatal mortality of 9.1% (still birth 6.9%, dying within 24 hours 1.7%, dying after 24 hours 0.5%) raise concern about the quality of care being provided.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Based on the 2% threshold, Tanga Region – with an overall level of major obstetric interventions for absolute maternal indications of 1% and a caesarean section rate of 1.4% – has significant unmet obstetric need with a considerable rural-urban disparity. The UON concept was found to be a suitable tool for evaluating and monitoring the coverage of obstetric care at district level.</p

Immediate Outcome Indicators in Perioperative Care: A Controlled Intervention Study on Quality Improvement in Hospitals in Tanzania.

Outcome assessment is the standard for evaluating the quality of health services worldwide. In this study, outcome has been divided into immediate and final outcome. Aim was to compare an intervention hospital with a Continuous Quality Improvement approach to a control group using benchmark assessments of immediate outcome indicators in surgical care. Results were compared to final outcome indicators. Surgical care quality in six hospitals in Tanzania was assessed from 2006-2011, using the Hospital Performance Assessment Tool. Independent observers assessed structural, process and outcome quality using checklists based on evidence-based guidelines. The number of surgical key procedures over the benchmark of 80% was compared between the intervention hospital and the control group. Results were compared to Case Fatality Rates. In the intervention hospital, in 2006, two of nine key procedures reached the benchmark, one in 2009, and four in 2011. In the control group, one of nine key procedures reached the benchmark in 2006, one in 2009, and none in 2011. Case Fatality Rate for all in-patients in the intervention hospital was 5.5% (n = 12,530) in 2006, 3.5% (n = 21,114) in 2009 and 4.6% (n = 18,840) in 2011. In the control group it was 3.1% (n = 17,827) in 2006, 4.2% (n = 13,632) in 2009 and 3.8% (n = 17,059) in 2011. Results demonstrated that quality assurance improved performance levels in both groups. After the introduction of Continuous Quality Improvement, performance levels improved further in the intervention hospital while quality in the district hospital did not. Immediate outcome indicators appeared to be a better steering tool for quality improvement compared to final outcome indicators. Immediate outcome indicators revealed a need for improvement in pre- and postoperative care. Quality assurance programs based on immediate outcome indicators can be effective if embedded in Continuous Quality Improvement. Nevertheless, final outcome indicators cannot be neglected

Correction: Perioperative Care and the Importance of Continuous Quality Improvement-A Controlled Intervention Study in Three Tanzanian Hospitals.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136156.]

Surgical key procedures over 2006, 2009 and 2011 in the intervention hospital.

<p>Immediate outcome indicators in surgical care in the intervention hospital 2006, 2009, 2011.</p>*<p>indicates significant change,</p><p>↑indicates improvement,</p><p>↓indicates decline.</p

Surgical key procedures over 2006, 2009 and 2011 in the control group.

<p>Immediate outcome indicators in surgical care in the control group 2006, 2009, 2011.</p>*<p>indicates significant change,</p><p>↑indicates improvement,</p><p>↓indicates decline.</p

Structure of the Hospital Performance Assessment Tool.

<p>There are twelve focal points (maternity, surgery, pediatrics, medicine, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, blood bank, management, maintenance, waste and hygiene, water and power). Key procedures consist of individual items that are structured in form of checklists. The assessment is conducted with the checklist of the items. The checklist with all items for the key procedure “discharge (observation)” in the clinical focal point surgery is given.</p

Surgical key procedures over 2006, 2009, 2011 in the intervention hospital.

<p>The black line indicates the benchmark of 80%. One key procedure (ward round, surgical performance) score over benchmark in 2006, one (surgical performance) in 2009 and in 2011. There are four key procedures (preoperative care; ward performance; ward round; surgical performance) with an immediate outcome indicator of more than 80%.</p

Surgical key procedures over 2006, 2009, 2011 in the control group.

<p>The black line indicates the benchmark of 80%. One key procedure (surgical performance) scores over benchmark in 2006, one (surgical performance) and in 2011 there is no key procedures with an immediate outcome indicator of more than 80%. Five procedures (discharge (observation); inpatient care; ward performance; postoperative care; surgical performance) have lower performance levels in 2011 than in 2006.</p

Surgical key procedures in 2011 in the individual surgical wards of the intervention hospital.

<p>Individual immediate outcome indicators in the three surgical wards of the intervention hospital in 2011.</p