Too complicated for the field? Measuring quality of care in humanitarian aid settings

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/302216
Title:
Too complicated for the field? Measuring quality of care in humanitarian aid settings
Authors:
Kersten, R; Bosse, G; Dörner, F; Slavuckij, A; Fernandez, G; Marx, M
Journal:
Global Health Action
Abstract:
While quality of care is a major concern in the western world, not many studies investigate this topic in low-income countries. Even less is known about the quality of care in humanitarian aid settings, where additional challenges from natural or manmade disasters contribute to additional challenges. This study tried to address this gap by introducing a new approach to systematically measure quality of care in a project of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Agok area, between South Sudan and Sudan. Our objective was to obtain a valid snapshot of quality of care for a MSF project in three weeks that has the potential to serve as a baseline for quality improvement strategies. The evaluation followed a cross-sectional study design to assess structural, process and outcome quality according to Donabedian's criteria of quality of care. A bundle of well-established methods for collection of quantitative and qualitative data was used to assess the project by following a triangulated mixed-methods approach. Mean structural quality scored 73% of expected performance level and mean process quality 59%. The overall mortality rate for the hospital was 3.6%. On average, less complicated cases got a better level of care than patients who were seriously ill. Significant motivational issues were discovered in staff interviews potentially affecting quality of care. The tool appeared to be quick, feasible and effective in judging quality of care in the selected project. To tap the whole potential of the approach a re-evaluation should be carried out to assess the effectiveness of implemented improvement strategies in Agok. To confirm the usefulness of the approach, more studies are needed covering the variety of different humanitarian aid settings.
Affiliation:
Independent International Health Consultant, Berlin, Germany
Publisher:
Co-Action Publishing
Issue Date:
16-May-2013
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10144/302216
PubMed ID:
23683715
Submitted date:
2013-06-24
Language:
en
ISSN:
1654-9880
Appears in Collections:
Research Methods

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorKersten, Ren_GB
dc.contributor.authorBosse, Gen_GB
dc.contributor.authorDörner, Fen_GB
dc.contributor.authorSlavuckij, Aen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFernandez, Gen_GB
dc.contributor.authorMarx, Men_GB
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-24T20:59:47Z-
dc.date.available2013-09-24T20:59:47Z-
dc.date.issued2013-05-16-
dc.date.submitted2013-06-24-
dc.identifier.citationToo complicated for the field? Measuring quality of care in humanitarian aid settings 2013, 6:20311 Glob Health Actionen_GB
dc.identifier.issn1654-9880-
dc.identifier.pmid23683715-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10144/302216-
dc.description.abstractWhile quality of care is a major concern in the western world, not many studies investigate this topic in low-income countries. Even less is known about the quality of care in humanitarian aid settings, where additional challenges from natural or manmade disasters contribute to additional challenges. This study tried to address this gap by introducing a new approach to systematically measure quality of care in a project of Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in Agok area, between South Sudan and Sudan. Our objective was to obtain a valid snapshot of quality of care for a MSF project in three weeks that has the potential to serve as a baseline for quality improvement strategies. The evaluation followed a cross-sectional study design to assess structural, process and outcome quality according to Donabedian's criteria of quality of care. A bundle of well-established methods for collection of quantitative and qualitative data was used to assess the project by following a triangulated mixed-methods approach. Mean structural quality scored 73% of expected performance level and mean process quality 59%. The overall mortality rate for the hospital was 3.6%. On average, less complicated cases got a better level of care than patients who were seriously ill. Significant motivational issues were discovered in staff interviews potentially affecting quality of care. The tool appeared to be quick, feasible and effective in judging quality of care in the selected project. To tap the whole potential of the approach a re-evaluation should be carried out to assess the effectiveness of implemented improvement strategies in Agok. To confirm the usefulness of the approach, more studies are needed covering the variety of different humanitarian aid settings.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCo-Action Publishingen_GB
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Global Health Actionen_GB
dc.subjectModels of Careen_GB
dc.subjectCourse on Operational Researchen_GB
dc.titleToo complicated for the field? Measuring quality of care in humanitarian aid settingsen
dc.contributor.departmentIndependent International Health Consultant, Berlin, Germanyen_GB
dc.identifier.journalGlobal Health Actionen_GB
All Items in MSF are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.