Search

Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) in resource-poor settings is very limited. We aimed to establish the effects of CQI on quality of antenatal HIV care in primary care clinics in rural South Africa., Methods and Findings: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing CQI to usual standard of antenatal care (ANC) in 7 nurse-led, public-sector primary care clinics-combined into 6 clusters-over 8 steps and 19 months. Clusters randomly switched from comparator to intervention on pre-specified dates until all had rolled over to the CQI intervention. Investigators and clusters were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to each step. The intervention was delivered by trained CQI mentors and included standard CQI tools (process maps, fishbone diagrams, run charts, Plan-Do-Study-Act [PDSA] cycles, and action learning sessions). CQI mentors worked with health workers, including nurses and HIV lay counsellors. The mentors used the standard CQI tools flexibly, tailored to local clinic needs. Health workers were the direct recipients of the intervention, whereas the ultimate beneficiaries were pregnant women attending ANC. Our 2 registered primary endpoints were viral load (VL) monitoring (which is critical for elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HIV [eMTCT] and the health of pregnant women living with HIV) and repeat HIV testing (which is necessary to identify and treat women who seroconvert during pregnancy). All pregnant women who attended their first antenatal visit at one of the 7 study clinics and were ≥18 years old at delivery were eligible for endpoint assessment. We performed intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses using modified Poisson generalised linear mixed effects models. We estimated effect sizes with time-step fixed effects and clinic random effects (Model 1). In separate models, we added a nested random clinic-time step interaction term (Model 2) or individual random effects (Model 3). Between 15 July 2015 and 30 January 2017, 2,160 participants with 13,212 ANC visits (intervention n = 6,877, control n = 6,335) were eligible for ITT analysis. No adverse events were reported. Median age at first booking was 25 years (interquartile range [IQR] 21 to 30), and median parity was 1 (IQR 0 to 2). HIV prevalence was 47% (95% CI 42% to 53%). In Model 1, CQI significantly increased VL monitoring (relative risk [RR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.57, p < 0.001) but did not improve repeat HIV testing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13, p = 0.958). These results remained essentially the same in both Model 2 and Model 3. Limitations of our study include that we did not establish impact beyond the duration of the relatively short study period of 19 months, and that transition steps may have been too short to achieve the full potential impact of the CQI intervention., Conclusions: We found that CQI can be effective at increasing quality of primary care in rural Africa. Policy makers should consider CQI as a routine intervention to boost quality of primary care in rural African communities. Implementation research should accompany future CQI use to elucidate mechanisms of action and to identify factors supporting long-term success., Trial Registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT02626351., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: We evaluated continuous quality improvement (CQI) targeting antenatal HIV care quality in rural South Africa using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial (Management and Optimisation of Nutrition, Antenatal, Reproductive, Child health, MONARCH) and an embedded process evaluation. Here, we present results of the process evaluation examining determinants of CQI practice and 'normalisation.' Methods: A team of CQI mentors supported public-sector health workers in seven primary care clinics to (1) identify root causes of poor HIV viral load (VL) monitoring among pregnant women living with HIV and repeat HIV testing among pregnant women not living with HIV, and (2) design and iteratively test their own solutions. We used a mixed methods evaluation with field notes from CQI mentors ('dose' and 'reach' of CQI, causes of poor HIV care testing rates, implemented change ideas); patient medical records (HIV care testing by clinic and time step); and semi-structured interviews with available health workers. We analysed field notes and semi-structured interviews for determinants of CQI implementation and 'normalisation' using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases (TICD) frameworks. Results: All interviewed health workers found the CQI mentors and methodology helpful for quality improvement. Total administered 'dose' was higher than planned but 'reach' was limited by resource constraints, particularly staffing shortages. Simple workable improvements to identified root causes were implemented, such as a patient tracking notebook and results filing system. VL monitoring improved over time, but not repeat HIV testing. Besides resource constraints, gaps in knowledge of guidelines, lack of leadership, poor clinical documentation, and data quality gaps reduced CQI implementation fidelity and normalisation. Conclusion: While CQI holds promise, we identified several health system challenges. Priorities for policy makers include improving staffing and strategies to improve clinical documentation. Additional support with implementing clinical guidelines and improving routine data quality are needed. Normalising CQI may be challenging without concurrent health system improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]