Changes in health worker knowledge and motivation in the context of a quality improvement programme in Ethiopia

A knowledgeable and motivated workforce is critical for health systems to provide high-quality services. Many low- and middle-income countries face shortages in human resources and low health worker motivation but are also home to a burgeoning number of quality improvement (QI) programmes. This study evaluates whether and how motivation and clinical knowledge in three cadres of health workers changed in the context of a QI programme for maternal and newborn health in Ethiopia. This mixed-methods study used a pre-post comparison group design with matched comparison areas. We interviewed 395 health workers at baseline in April 2018 and 404 at endline in June 2019 from seven districts (woredas) with QI and seven comparison woredas. Three cadres were interviewed: health extension workers, facility-based skilled midlevel maternal and newborn care providers, and non-patient-facing staff. A qualitative component sought to triangulate and further elucidate quantitative findings using in-depth interviews with 22 health workers. Motivation was assessed quantitatively, exploratory factor analysis was used to categorize motivation dimensions, and regression-based difference-in-difference analyses were conducted. Knowledge was assessed through a clinical vignette. Qualitative data were analysed in a deductive process based on a framework derived from quantitative results. Although knowledge of the QI programme was high (79%) among participants from QI woreda at endline, participation in QI teams was lower (56%). There was strong evidence that health worker knowledge increased more in areas with QI than comparison areas. Three motivation dimensions emerged from the data: (1) 'helping others', (2) 'pride and satisfaction' and (3) 'external recognition and support'. We found strong evidence that motivation across these factors improved in both QI and comparison areas, with weak evidence of greater increases in comparison areas. Qualitative data suggested the QI programme may have improved motivation by allowing staff to provide better care. This study suggests that although QI programmes can increase health worker knowledge, there may be little effect on motivation. Programme evaluations should measure a wide range of outcomes to fully understand their impact

“Quality teaches you how to use water. It doesn’t provide a water pump”: a qualitative study of context and mechanisms of action in an Ethiopian quality improvement program

Background Quality improvement collaboratives are a common approach to bridging the quality-of-care gap, but little is known about implementation in low-income settings. Implementers rarely consider mechanisms of change or the role of context, which may explain collaboratives’ varied impacts. Methods To understand mechanisms and contextual influences we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with staff from four health centres and two hospitals involved in quality improvement collaboratives in Ethiopia. We also generated control charts for selected indicators to explore any impacts of the collaboratives. Results The cross facility learning sessions increased the prominence and focus on quality, allowed learning from experts and peers and were motivational through public recognition of success or a desire to emulate peers. Within facilities, new structures and processes were created. These were fragile and sometimes alienating to those outside the improvement team. The trusted and respected mentors were important for support, motivation and accountability. Where mentor visits were infrequent or mentors less skilled, team function was impacted. These mechanisms were more prominent, and quality improvement more functional, in facilities with strong leadership and pre-existing good teamwork; as staff had shared goals, an active approach to problems and were more willing and able to be flexible to implement change ideas. Quality improvement structures and processes were more likely to be internally driven and knowledge transferred to other staff in these facilities, which reduced the impact of staff turnover and increased buy-in. In facilities which lacked essential inputs, staff struggled to see how the collaborative could meaningfully improve quality and were less likely to have functioning quality improvement. The unexpected civil unrest in one region strongly disrupted the health system and the collaborative. These contextual issues were fluid, with multiple interactions and linkages. Conclusions The study confirms the need to carefully consider context in the implementation of quality improvement collaboratives. Facilities that implement quality improvement successfully may be those that already have characteristics that foster quality. Quality improvement may be alienating to those outside of the improvement team and implementers should not assume the organic spread or transfer of quality improvement knowledge

“Quality teaches you how to use water. It doesn’t provide a water pump”: a qualitative study of context and mechanisms of action in an Ethiopian quality improvement program

Abstract Background Quality improvement collaboratives are a common approach to bridging the quality-of-care gap, but little is known about implementation in low-income settings. Implementers rarely consider mechanisms of change or the role of context, which may explain collaboratives’ varied impacts. Methods To understand mechanisms and contextual influences we conducted 55 in-depth interviews with staff from four health centres and two hospitals involved in quality improvement collaboratives in Ethiopia. We also generated control charts for selected indicators to explore any impacts of the collaboratives. Results The cross facility learning sessions increased the prominence and focus on quality, allowed learning from experts and peers and were motivational through public recognition of success or a desire to emulate peers. Within facilities, new structures and processes were created. These were fragile and sometimes alienating to those outside the improvement team. The trusted and respected mentors were important for support, motivation and accountability. Where mentor visits were infrequent or mentors less skilled, team function was impacted. These mechanisms were more prominent, and quality improvement more functional, in facilities with strong leadership and pre-existing good teamwork; as staff had shared goals, an active approach to problems and were more willing and able to be flexible to implement change ideas. Quality improvement structures and processes were more likely to be internally driven and knowledge transferred to other staff in these facilities, which reduced the impact of staff turnover and increased buy-in. In facilities which lacked essential inputs, staff struggled to see how the collaborative could meaningfully improve quality and were less likely to have functioning quality improvement. The unexpected civil unrest in one region strongly disrupted the health system and the collaborative. These contextual issues were fluid, with multiple interactions and linkages. Conclusions The study confirms the need to carefully consider context in the implementation of quality improvement collaboratives. Facilities that implement quality improvement successfully may be those that already have characteristics that foster quality. Quality improvement may be alienating to those outside of the improvement team and implementers should not assume the organic spread or transfer of quality improvement knowledge

Additional file 1 of “Quality teaches you how to use water. It doesn’t provide a water pump”: a qualitative study of context and mechanisms of action in an Ethiopian quality improvement program

Supplementary Material