Search

Objectives To understand commonalities and differences in injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving quality injury care across three lower-income and middle-income countries.Design A qualitative interview study. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and thematically analysed.Setting Urban and rural settings in Ghana, South Africa and Rwanda.Participants 59 patients with musculoskeletal injuries.Results We found five common barriers and six common facilitators to injured patient experiences of accessing and receiving high-quality injury care. The barriers encompassed issues such as service and treatment availability, transportation challenges, apathetic care, individual financial scarcity and inadequate health insurance coverage, alongside low health literacy and information provision. Facilitators included effective information giving and informed consent practices, access to health insurance, improved health literacy, empathetic and responsive care, comprehensive multidisciplinary management and discharge planning, as well as both informal and formal transportation options including ambulance services. These barriers and facilitators were prevalent and shared across at least two countries but demonstrated intercountry and intracountry (between urbanity and rurality) variation in thematic frequency.Conclusion There are universal factors influencing patient experiences of accessing and receiving care, independent of the context or healthcare system. It is important to recognise and understand these barriers and facilitators to inform policy decisions and develop transferable interventions aimed at enhancing the quality of injury care in sub-Saharan African nations.

Objective A vital component of a prehospital emergency care system is getting an injured patient to the right hospital at the right time. Process and information flow mapping are recognised methods to show where efficiencies can be made. We aimed to understand the process and information flows used by the prehospital emergency service in transporting community emergencies in Rwanda in order to identify areas for improvement.Design Two facilitated process/information mapping workshops were conducted. Process maps were produced in real time during discussions and shared with participants for their agreement. They were further validated by field observations.Setting The study took place in two prehospital care settings serving predominantly rural and predominantly urban patients.Participants 24 healthcare professionals from various cadres. Field observations were done on 49 emergencies across both sites.Results Two maps were produced, and four main process stages were described: (1) call triage by the dispatch/call centre team, (2) scene triage by the ambulance team, (3) patient monitoring by the ambulance team on the way to the health facility and (4) handover process at the health facility. The first key finding was that the rural site had multiple points of entry into the system for emergency patients, whereas the urban system had one point of entry (the national emergency number); processes were otherwise similar between sites. The second was that although large amounts of information were collected to inform decision-making about which health facility to transfer patients to, participants found it challenging to articulate the intellectual process by which they used this to make decisions; guidelines were not used for decision-making.Discussion We have identified several areas of the prehospital care processes where there can be efficiencies. To make efficiencies in the decision-making process and produce a standard approach for all patients will require protocolising care pathways.

Objectives Using the ‘Four Delay’ framework, our study aimed to identify and explore barriers to accessing quality injury care from the injured patients’, caregivers’ and community leaders’ perspectives.Design A qualitative study assessing barriers to trauma care comprising 20 in-depth semistructured interviews and 4 focus group discussions was conducted. The data were analysed thematically.Setting This qualitative study was conducted in Rwanda’s rural Burera District, located in the Northern Province, and in Kigali City, the country’s urban capital, to capture both the rural and urban population’s experiences of being injured.Participants Purposively selected participants were individuals from urban and rural communities who had accessed injury care in the previous 6 months or cared for the injured people, and community leaders. Fifty-one participants, 13 females and 38 males ranging from 21 to 68 years of age participated in interviews and focus group discussions. Thirty-six (71%) were former trauma patients with a wide range of injuries including fractured long bones (9, 45%), other fractures, head injury, polytrauma (3, 15% each), abdominal trauma (1, 5%), and lacerations (1, 5%), while the rest were caregivers and community leaders.Results Multiple barriers were identified cutting across all levels of the ‘Four Delays’ framework, including barriers to seeking, reaching, receiving and remaining in care. Key barriers mentioned by participants in both interviews and focus group discussions were: lack of community health insurance, limited access to ambulances, insufficient number of trauma care specialists and a high volume of trauma patients. The rigid referral process and lack of decentralised rehabilitation services were also identified as significant barriers to accessing quality care for injured patients.Conclusions Future interventions to improve access to injury care in Rwanda must be informed by the identified barriers along the spectrum of care, from the point of injury to receipt of care and rehabilitation.

Objectives This study aims to evaluate health systems governance for injury care in three sub-Saharan countries from policymakers’ and injury care providers’ perspectives.Setting Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa.Design Based on Siddiqi et al’s framework for governance, we developed an online assessment tool for health system governance for injury with 37 questions covering health policy and implementation under 10 overarching principles of strategic vision, participation and consensus orientation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness of institutions, equity, effectiveness or efficiency, accountability, ethics and intelligence and information. A literature review was also done to support the scoring. We derived scores using two methods—investigator scores and respondent scores.Participants The tool was sent out to purposively selected stakeholders, including policymakers and injury care providers in Ghana, Rwanda and South Africa. Data were collected between October 2020 and February 2021.Primary and secondary outcomes Investigator-weighted and respondent percentage scores for health system governance for injury care. This was calculated for each country in total and per principle.Results Rwanda had the highest overall investigator-weighted percentage score (70%), followed by South Africa (59%). Ghana had the lowest overall investigator score (48%). The overall results were similar for the respondent scores. Some areas, such as participation and consensus, scored high in all three countries, while other areas, such as transparency, scored very low.Conclusion In this multicountry governance survey, we provide insight into and evaluation of health system governance for trauma in three low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in sub-Saharan Africa. It highlights areas of improvement that need to be prioritised, such as transparency, to meet the high burden of trauma and injuries in LMICs.