WHO WB Quality Health Services-Eng

Delivering quality
health services
A global imperative
for universal health coverage
Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal
health coverage
ISBN 978-92-4-151390-6 WHO
ISBN 978-92-64-30030-9 (PDF) OECD
© World Health Organization, OECD, and

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 2018
Some rights reserved. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo).
Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes,
provided the work is appropriately cited, as indicated below. In any use of this work, there should be no
suggestion that WHO, OECD and The World Bank endorse any specific organization, products or services.
The use of the WHO, OECD or The World Bank logo is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must
license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence and add the following disclaimer
along with the suggested citation: “This is an adaptation of an original work by WHO, OECD and The World
Bank. Responsibility for the views and opinions expressed in the adaptation rests solely with the author or
authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by WHO, OECD or any member institution of the World
Bank Group”. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with
the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the World Health Organization (WHO), OECD
or The World Bank. WHO, OECD and The World Bank are not responsible for the content or accuracy of this
translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”.
Any mediation relating to disputes arising under the licence shall be conducted in accordance with the
mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules).
Suggested citation. Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage.
Geneva: World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and The
World Bank; 2018. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Cataloguing-in-Publication (CIP) data. CIP data are available at http://apps.who.int/iris.
Sales, rights and licensing. To purchase WHO publications, see http://apps.who.int/bookorders. To submit
requests for commercial use and queries on rights and licensing, see http://www.who.int/about/licensing.
Third-party materials. If you wish to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such
as tables, figures or images, it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse
and to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any
third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization, OECD
and The World Bank concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate
border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are
endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization, OECD and The World Bank in preference to
others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary
products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization, OECD and The World Bank
to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed
without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use
of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization, OECD and The World
Bank be liable for damages arising from its use.
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views
of WHO, OECD or The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication.
Printed in Switzerland
Icons designed by Freepik, from www.flaticon.com

Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 1 Background: striving for quality in health care services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.1 Widespread evidence of poor quality in all countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.2 The economic argument for good quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3 Quality as a fundamental feature of universal health coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Affordability of quality for all countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 2 About this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2 Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 3 Global state of health care quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.1 The quality imperative for universal health coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2 Defining quality of care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Global picture of health care quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter 4 Building quality into the foundations of health systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2 Foundations for high-quality care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3 Quality of care as the foundation of people-centred health care. . . . . . . . . . 49
4.4 The vision: health systems committed to people-centred care. . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Chapter 5 Understanding levers to improve quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2 Driving improvement through national quality policy and strategy. . . . . . . 58
5.3 Quality interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.4 Consideration and selection of quality interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.5 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Chapter 6 The quality call to action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6.1 Sustainable development, quality and the way forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6.2 Call to action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Annex: Improvement interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
DELIVERING QUALITY HEALTH SERVICES: A GLOBAL IMPERATIVE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE 3
Contents
Figures
Figure 3.1 Median under-5 mortality across dimensions of inequality, 2005–2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3.2 Elements of health care quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 3.3 Number of clinical vignettes correctly diagnosed by Kenyan providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 3.4 Burden of disease caused by adverse events, 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 3.5 Doctor providing easy-to-understand explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 3.6 Trends in average waiting times for hip replacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 3.7 Structural and process quality of maternal services by county poverty level
in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 4.1 Global density and distribution of skilled health professionals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 4.2 Variations in availability of basic equipment across health care facilities
in sub-Saharan Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Figure 4.3 Primary care as a hub of coordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 4.4 Five strategies for people-centred services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Tables
Table 5.1 Illustrative quality interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 5.2 Quality-related interventions: engaging key actors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Boxes
Box 3.1 Liberia: embedding quality in the post-Ebola health agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Box 4.1 Case study: training and retaining health care workers in underserved areas
of the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Box 4.2 Case study: OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Box 4.3 Case study: improving civil registration and vital statistics in Uganda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Box 4.4 Case study: unmet needs for the care of chronic diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Box 4.5 Case study: primary care in Costa Rica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Box 4.6 Case study: using Citizen Voice and Action to empower communities in Uganda. . . 51
Box 4.7 Key actions: building quality into the foundations of health systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Box 5.1 Case study: Ethiopia – National Health Care Quality Strategy 2016–2020. . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Box 5.2 Case study: Sudan – National Health Care Quality Policy and Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Box 5.3 Case study: Mexico – National Strategy for Quality Consolidation in Health Care
Facilities and Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Box 5.4 Case study: Ontario, Canada – Excellent Care for All Act and Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Box 5.5 Key actions: understanding levers to improve quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Box 6.1 High-level actions by key constituencies for quality in health care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4
Preface
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reaffirm a global commitment to achieve
universal health coverage (UHC) by 2030. This means that all people and communities,
everywhere in the world, should have access to the high-quality health services they
need – promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative, or palliative – without facing
financial hardship.
The way we typically measure progress in UHC is through effective coverage of essential
health services and financial protection (ensuring that no one becomes impoverished
because of ill-health). But even if the world achieved essential health coverage and
financial protection, health outcomes would still be poor if services were low-quality
and unsafe. Delivering quality health services is essential to UHC. That is the focus of
this report.
Evidence suggests that substandard care wastes significant resources and harms the
health of populations, destroying human capital and reducing productivity. Quality
of care, especially patient safety, is essential to creating trust in health services. It is
also key to global health security, which starts with local health security, and in turn
depends on high-quality frontline health services. Quality health services not only
prevent human suffering and ensure healthier societies, they also ensure better human
capital and healthier economies.
Too often, quality is perceived as a luxury that only rich countries can afford. This is a
fallacy. Building quality health services requires a culture of transparency, engagement,
and openness about results, which are possible in all societies – regardless of their
income level. Around the world, lessons abound on what works and what does
not, providing a rich foundation from which to rapidly scale up a quality revolution.
Technological innovation plays a key role in offering new ways to expand high-quality
health care services more rapidly, and at an affordable cost.
A focus on people-centredness has to be the core of quality. People and communities
must be engaged in the design, delivery, and ongoing assessment of health services
to ensure they are built to meet local health needs – rather than those of donors,
commercial or political interests, or because “it’s always been done that way”.
Focusing on quality is critical, but leadership must also focus on celebrating excellence;
communicating transparently; and fostering collaboration across clinical teams, as
well as with patients, and civil society – including patient groups, nongovernmental
organizations, and grassroots community groups.
Universal health coverage is not a dream for the future. It is already a reality in many
countries; however, without quality health services, it can remain an empty promise.
This foundational report builds a strong technical and political case for investing in
quality health services. The collective prize is a healthier, safer and fairer world.
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Jim Yong Kim Angel Gurría

Director-General President Secretary-General
World Health Organization The World Bank Group OECD
Acknowledgements
This document was jointly prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO), the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank
under the overall guidance of Marie-Paule Kieny, former Assistant Director-General,
Health Systems and Innovation Cluster, WHO; Timothy Evans, Senior Director, Health,
Nutrition and Population Global Practice, World Bank Group; and Stefano Scarpetta,
Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD. The writing team comprised
Edward Kelley (WHO), Niek Klazinga (OECD), Ian Forde (OECD), Jeremy Veillard
(World Bank), Sheila Leatherman (Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of
North Carolina), Shamsuzzoha Syed (WHO), Sun Mean Kim (WHO), Sepideh Bagheri
Nejad (WHO) and Sir Liam Donaldson (WHO Envoy for Patient Safety). Development of
the document was coordinated by Sepideh Bagheri Nejad.
The authors wish to thank colleagues from the Dutch National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM), Michael van den Berg and Wilco Graafmans for
their input to the development of the overall conceptual framework and content of the
document, Stefano Scarpetta, Mark Pearson, Francesca Colombo, Caroline Berchet and
Luke Slawomirski from OECD for their contribution to the writing, and Sagar Dugani
and Adanna Deborah Ugochi Chukwuma from the World Bank for their help with the
revision of the text at the final stage.
The document benefited from the rich inputs of the Advisory Committee, composed
of the following members: Sir Liam Donaldson (Chair), Clifford Hughes, Tawfik Khoja,
Jan Mainz, Rashad Massoud, Robin Osborn, Enrique Ruelas, Paul Shekelle, Anuwat
Supachutikul and Nana Amma Twum-Danso.
Country case studies were produced by the following people: Daniel Burssa and
Eyub Gebretsadik for Ethiopia; Sebastian García Saiso, Paulina Pacheco Estrello and
Enrique Ruelas for Mexico; Elmuez Eltayeb for Sudan; and Michelle Rossi, Joshua Tepper
and Adalsteinn Brown for Ontario, Canada.
The annex on improvement interventions was produced by Sheila Leatherman (Gillings
School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina), and Liana Rosenkrantz
Woskie, Anthony Moccia, Ruma Rajbhandari and Kim Reimold (the Harvard Initiative
on Global Health Quality at the Harvard Global Health Institute).
We wish to thank Gheorghe Sorin Banica and Laura Pearson for administrative support
and Gary Humphreys for writing the initial draft of the document.
We would also like to thank the following peer reviewers: Donald Berwick, Helen Haskell,
Margaret Kruk and Ephrem Lemango.
Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to the many other staff members
from the three partner organizations who contributed to this document. Without their
dedication, support and expertise this work would not have been possible:
Yetmgeta Abdella, Najeeb Al Shorbaji, Benedetta Allegranzi, Broog Alsadhan, Shannon
Barkley, Marie-Charlotte Bouesseau, James Campbell, Meena Cherian, Mickey Chopra,
Krycia Cowling, Jishnu Das, Neelam Dhingra-Kumar, Joan Dzenowagis, Peter Engelfriet,
Linda Freiheit, Ruben Frescas, Michele Gragnolati, Michelle Karen Funk, Javier Gomez
Batiste‑Alentorn, Joyce Hightower, Maki Kajiwara, Rania Kawar, Michael George Kay,
Acknowledgements
Claire Kilpatrick, Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Angela Lashoher, Agnès Leotsakos,

Manon Lette, Akiko Maeda, Nicola Magrini, Elizabeth Mason, Kellie McGee,
Nana Mensah Abrampah, Hernan Montenegro Von Mühlenbrock, Margaret Murphy,
Jillian Oderkirk, Shanti Pal, Felicity Pocklington, Nittita Prasopa-Plaizier, Paul Peter
Schneider, Emma Scholar, Maria Cecilia Sepulveda Bermedo, Maria Angelica Sousa,
Julie Storr, Nuria Toro Polanco, Andreas Ullrich, Krisantha Weerasuriya, Erica Wheeler,
Tana Wuliji, Mohammad Taghi Yasamy, Junping Yu, Hongwen Zhao and Hao Zheng.
8
Abbreviations
CAIS centres for integrated health care (centros de atención integral en salud)
CDS clinical decision support
DALY disability-adjusted life-year
EBAIS integrated health care basic teams (equipos básicos de atención
integral de salud)
EuroHOPE European Health Care Outcomes, Performance and Efficiency (project)
HTA health technology assessment
MDG Millennium Development Goal
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
P4P pay for performance
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WHO World Health Organization
Abbreviations
10
Executive summary
This document – Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal
health coverage – describes the essential role of quality in the delivery of health care
services. As nations commit to achieving universal health coverage by 2030, there is
a growing acknowledgement that optimal health care cannot be delivered by simply
ensuring coexistence of infrastructure, medical supplies and health care providers.
Improvement in health care delivery requires a deliberate focus on quality of health
services, which involves providing effective, safe, people-centred care that is timely,
equitable, integrated and efficient. Quality of care is the degree to which health services
for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and
are consistent with current professional knowledge.
Data show that quality of care in most countries, particularly low- and middle-income
countries, is suboptimal, as revealed by the following examples.
• Adherence to clinical practice guidelines in eight low- and middle-income
countries was below 50% in several instances, resulting in low-quality antenatal
and child care and deficient family planning.
• The Service Delivery Indicators initiative in seven low- and middle-income
countries showed significant variation in provider absenteeism (14.3–44.3%),
daily productivity (5.2–17.4 patients), diagnostic accuracy (34–72.2%), and,
adherence to clinical guidelines (22–43.8%).
• A systematic review of 80 studies showed that suboptimal clinical practice is
common in both private and public primary health care facilities in several low-
and middle-income countries.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data from
high- and middle-income countries show that 19–53% of women aged 50–69
years did not receive mammography screening, and that 27–73% of older adults
(age 65 years and above) did not receive influenza vaccination.
BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES THROUGH IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY

High-quality health services involve the right care, at the right time, responding
to the service users’ needs and preferences, while minimizing harm and resource
waste. Quality health care increases the likelihood of desired health outcomes and
is consistent with seven measurable characteristics: effectiveness, safety, people-
centredness, timeliness, equity, integration of care and efficiency. For instance, in
Pakistan, increasing first-contact accessibility to health care workers through the
Lady Health Worker Programme improved management of pneumonia and lowered
neonatal mortality.
BUILDING QUALITY MECHANISMS INTO THE FOUNDATIONS

OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS
The five foundational elements critical to delivering quality health care services are
health care workers; health care facilities; medicines, devices and other technologies;
information systems; and financing. To ensure that quality is built into the foundations
Executive summary
of systems, governments, policy-makers, health system leaders, patients and clinicians

should work together to:
• ensure a high-quality health workforce;

• ensure excellence across all health care facilities;
• ensure safe and effective use of medicines, devices and other technologies;
• ensure effective use of health information systems;
• develop financing mechanisms that support continuous quality improvement.
INTERVENTIONS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF CARE

Quality is a complex and multifaceted concept that requires the design and simultaneous
deployment of combinations of discrete interventions. The development, refinement
and execution of a national quality policy and strategy is a growing priority as countries
strive to systematically improve health system performance. Most approaches to
national quality strategy development involve one or more of the following processes:
• a quality policy and implementation strategy as part of the formal health sector
national plan;
• a quality policy document developed as a stand-alone national document, usually
within a multistakeholder process, led or supported by the ministry of health;
• anational quality implementation strategy – with a detailed action agenda –
which also includes a section on essential policy areas;
• enabling legislation and regulatory statutes to support the policy and strategy.
Seven categories of interventions stand out and are routinely considered by health
system stakeholders, including providers, managers and policy-makers, when trying to
improve the quality of the health care system:
• changing clinical practice at the front line;

• setting standards;
• engaging and empowering patients, families and communities;
• information and education for health care workers, managers and policy-makers;
• use of continuous quality improvement programmes and methods;
• establishing performance-based incentives (financial and non-financial);
• legislation and regulation.
Selection by governments of a range and mix of quality interventions should be done
by carefully examining the evidence-based quality improvement interventions in
relation to the system environment; reducing harm; improvement in clinical care; and
patient, family and community engagement and empowerment.
SHARING OF LESSONS LEARNED FOR SCALE-UP OF SUCCESSFUL

INTERVENTIONS
Several nations are developing innovations to improve the different aspects of quality.
As described in this document, many low- and middle-income countries have developed
successful interventions, but require a global platform to share knowledge. This will
allow nations to learn from successful interventions and adapt them to their local
populations. It will also allow nations to avoid directing efforts towards unsuccessful
interventions.
12
Improving quality of care has proven challenging for all nations. However, providing
quality care to people everywhere remains the most important shared responsibility
and opportunity to improve the health of people globally. With a deliberate emphasis
on quality, nations will be able to make significant progress towards achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals and attaining universal health coverage.
CALL TO ACTION
This document, from the perspective of three global institutions concerned with
health – OECD, the World Bank and the World Health Organization – proposes a way
forward for health policy-makers seeking to achieve the goal of access to high-quality,
people-centred health services for all.
High-level actions are called for from each of the key constituencies that need to
work together with a sense of urgency to enable the promise of the Sustainable
Development Goals for better and safer health care to be realized.
All governments should:

• have a national quality policy and strategy;
• demonstrate accountability for delivering a safe high-quality service;
• ensure that reforms driven by the goal of universal health coverage build quality
into the foundation of their care systems;
• ensure that health systems have an infrastructure of information and information
technology capable of measuring and reporting the quality of care;
• close the gap between actual and achievable performance in quality;
• strengthen the partnerships between health providers and health users that drive
quality in care;
• establish and sustain a health professional workforce with the capacity and
capability to meet the demands and needs of the population for high-quality care;
• purchase, fund and commission based on the principle of value;
• finance quality improvement research.
All health systems should:
• implement evidence-based interventions that demonstrate improvement;
• benchmark against similar systems that are delivering best performance;
• ensure that all people with chronic disease are enabled to minimize its impact on
the quality of their lives;
• promote the culture systems and practices that will reduce harm to patients;
• build resilience to enable prevention, detection and response to health security
threats through focused attention on quality;
• put in place the infrastructure for learning;
• provide technical assistance and knowledge management for improvement.
All citizens and patients should:
• be empowered to actively engage in care to optimize their health status;
• play a leading role in the design of new models of care to meet the needs of the
local community;
• be informed that it is their right to have access to care that meets achievable
modern standards of quality;
• receive support, information and skills to manage their own long-term conditions.
Executive summary
All health care workers should:

• participate in quality measurement and improvement with their patients;
• embrace a practice philosophy of teamwork;
• see patients as partners in the delivery of care;
• commit themselves to providing and using data to demonstrate the effectiveness
and safety of the care.
While no single actor will be able to effect all these changes, an integrated approach
whereby different actors work together to achieve their part will have a demonstrable
effect on the quality of health care services around the world.
14
1
Background:
Chapter striving for quality
in health care services
Chapter 1
Background: striving for quality in health care services
Universal health coverage is an important and noble objective. Enshrined in the

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), universal health coverage aims to provide
health security and universal access to essential care services without financial hardship
to individuals, families and communities, thus enabling a transition to more productive
and equitable societies and economies.
But universal health coverage should not be discussed and planned, let alone
implemented, without a focus on quality. It is essential to ensure that care is effective,
safe, and in keeping with the preference and needs of the people and communities
being served. Further, provision of care should be timely and equitable across
populations, coordinated across the continuum of care and throughout the life course,
while minimizing resource waste.
Quality of care therefore underpins and is fundamental to universal
health coverage. For if quality of care is not ensured, what is the
point of expanding access to care? Access without quality can be
considered an empty universal health coverage promise.
Quality is not a prerogative of high-income countries. If countries
can afford to provide any health care – and even the poorest
can and should do so – they must provide care of good quality.
The alternative – poor-quality care – is not only harmful but
also wastes precious resources that can be invested in other
important drivers of social and economic development to improve
the lives of citizens. Billions of dollars are spent on the consequences
of poor-quality care – money that can fund schools, social services and
infrastructure. And poor quality can also undermine the trust of the population in the
benefits of modern medicine. Seen this way, universal health coverage without quality
of care is a job half done.
1.1 WIDESPREAD EVIDENCE OF POOR QUALITY IN ALL COUNTRIES

Much progress has been made in improving some aspects of quality of health care
across the world, for example with regard to cancer survival rates and mortality from
cardiovascular diseases (1, 2). But in other areas, progress has been slow and uneven.
The numbers speak for themselves.
• In high-income countries, one in 10 patients is adversely affected during
treatment (3).
• In high-income countries, seven in 100 hospitalized patients can expect to
acquire a health care-associated infection (in developing countries this figure
is one in 10), infections that can be easily avoided through better hygiene and
intelligent use of antimicrobials (4).
• Unwarranted variations in health care provision and delivery persist, and a
considerable proportion of patients do not receive appropriate, evidence-based
care (5, 6).
• Influenza
vaccination rates vary across high-income countries from 1% to over
78%, despite a goal of 75% by 2010 set by the World Health Assembly in 2003 (7).
• Antimicrobial resistance has become a major global public health issue, partly
due to the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in health care (8).
• Globally, the cost associated with medication errors has been estimated at
US$ 42 billion annually, not counting lost wages, foregone productivity or health
care costs (9).
16
• While the rate of skilled birth attendance increased from 58% in 1990 to 73% in
2013, mainly due to increases in facility-based births, there are still many women
and babies who, even after reaching a health facility, die or develop lifelong
disabilities due to poor quality of care. The World Health Organization (WHO)
estimates that 303 000 mothers and 2.7 million newborn infants die annually
around the time of childbirth, and that many more are affected by preventable
illness. Further, some 2.6 million babies are stillborn each year (10, 11).
• Nearly 40% of health care facilities in low- and middle-income countries lack
improved water and nearly 20% lack sanitation – the implications for quality of
care are clearly evident (12).
• Cross-country estimates of the distribution of diagnosis and control of raised
blood pressure in selected countries outside the OECD highlights the importance
of quality preventive services. In most, at least half of the adults with raised blood
pressure have not been diagnosed with hypertension. Hypertension treatment
coverage is therefore low, ranging from 7% to 61% among people who have
presented with raised blood pressure in the household surveys. However,
effective coverage is considerably lower than coverage, ranging from 1% to
31%, indicating a quality issue (13).
1.2 THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT FOR GOOD QUALITY

Beyond the effects on people’s lives, poor-quality care wastes time and money. Making
quality an integral part of universal health coverage is both a matter of striving for
longer and better lives and an economic necessity. Building quality in health systems
is affordable for countries at all levels of economic development. In fact, the lack of
quality is an unaffordable cost, especially for the poorest countries.
Substandard quality of care not only contributes to the global disease burden and
unmet health needs, it also exerts a substantial economic impact, with considerable
cost implications for health systems and communities across the world. Approximately
15% of hospital expenditure in high-income countries is used to correct preventable
complications of care and patient harm. Poor-quality care disproportionately affects
the more vulnerable groups in society, and the broader economic and social costs of
patient harm caused by long-term disability, impairment and lost productivity amount
to trillions of dollars each year (14).
In addition, duplicate services, ineffective care and avoidable hospital admissions –
features of many health systems – generate considerable waste. Up to a fifth of health
resources are deployed in ways that generate very few health improvements. These
scarce resources could be deployed much more effectively (3).
1.3 QUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF UNIVERSAL

HEALTH COVERAGE
Quality does not come automatically; it requires planning, and should be a clearly
identified priority of universal health coverage, along with access, coverage and
financial protection. This document shows that building quality into health systems is
possible if a number of steps are followed and principles applied, namely transparency,
people-centredness, measurement and generation of information, and investing in
the workforce, all underpinned by leadership and a supportive culture. With these
fundamentals in place, proven interventions and practices to ensure quality – such
as hand hygiene, treatment protocols, checklists, education, and reporting and
feedback – can be implemented and sustained.
Chapter 1
Transparency is paramount. It is the bedrock of continuous learning and improvement.

The overarching conclusion from 15 reviews of quality in national health systems
conducted by OECD between 2012 and 2016 was the need for greater transparency
about performance in terms of quality and outcomes of care (15). A key component of
transparency is being open and honest about results, including lapses and mistakes.
In such an environment these become opportunities to learn, as is the case in other
sectors, including air transport. Successful outcomes should be celebrated and shared
for the same reasons. This culture of transparency can take time to build, but it can and
must be instilled in all health systems, regardless of resources available.
Involving people and communities in their own care and in the design of their
health services is now recognized as a key determinant of better outcomes. People and
the communities in which they are born, raised, live, work and play are at the heart
of delivering quality health services. People who are actively engaged in their own
health and care suffer fewer complications and enjoy better health and well-being.
At the clinical level, this means enabling patients to partner in their care and in
clinical decisions, and to actively manage their health. People-centredness is
the “doorway to all qualities” (16). Indeed, the common thread of success
stories detailed later in this document is putting the patient’s needs and
values front and centre. This means caring with compassion and respect.
But people-centredness goes beyond individual care. People
and patients should be involved in priority setting and in policy
development. Nowhere is this more important than in primary and
community care. These services need to be designed with input from
the communities that they serve, based on their unique needs and
preferences, as discussed in Chapter 4 of this document.
Quality requires measurement and generation of information.
Health care is changing all the time, so quality needs to be continually
monitored and assessed to drive improvement. This relies on accurate
and timely information. The banking industry devotes 13% of its income
to information systems. Health care invests less than 5% – a paltry amount
for an information-intense sector. And when they exist, the data generated by
health systems are too often concentrated on inputs and volume of activities. This
needs to change if quality is to become a routine part of health care. Reliable quality
metrics must be embedded in local and national health information infrastructures –
this is even more important than measuring inputs. In the spirit of transparency,
information must be available to all relevant actors, including patients, providers,
regulators, purchasers and policy-makers.
All dimensions of quality should be measured. It is important to know about adherence
to essential protocols and the quality of processes and pathways, for example hand
hygiene; surgical safety checklists; adherence to clinical practice guidelines; and clinical
outcomes, for example readmissions, mortality rates, adverse drug reactions, survival
after a diagnosis of cancer and adequate control of glycaemia during pregnancy. But
knowledge must also be generated on the outcomes and experiences of care that are
valued by patients through the measurement of patient- and community-reported
quality indicators (17). All this needs to be done with a clear eye on strong linkages
between measurement and improvement – measuring alone will not improve quality.
A skilled, motivated and adequately supported health workforce is critical.
Health care providers want to deliver the best possible care to their patients. Often,
however, the systems and environments they work in make this task difficult. Many
countries face significant deficiencies in both the quantity and quality of their health
18
workforce. Of course, not all care should be delivered by doctors. Nurses, allied and
community health workers, care coordinators and managers all play important roles
in delivering high-quality care in the 21st century. It is possible to achieve high quality
by leveraging their skills throughout the chain of health production (18).
In providing high-quality care, technical knowledge needs to be augmented by
the ability to communicate and work as a team with other professionals,
and to partner with patients and their carers. It also requires a
workforce trained in the principles and practice of continuous quality
improvement, as well as recognition of the “hidden curriculum”
that arises from the fallibility of human-designed systems. Quality
is also a function of how well efforts are organized and integrated
with other sectors, taking account of patterns of behaviour,
human interaction and relationships. This in turn depends
on the incentives that are in place, including funding and
remuneration, regulation, reporting and feedback, which need
to be carefully built into all processes and institutions. In the end,
systems provide the fertile soil in which high-quality practice and
improvement can bloom.
None of the above is possible without leadership and an enabling
culture. A buoyant culture in which all actors are motivated to
collaborate, communicate and work with their communities to deliver
high-quality people-centred care, without fear or intimidation, has been
shown to deliver better outcomes (19). Many factors influence such a
culture of continuous quality improvement. First and foremost, a transparent
environment should be cultivated, as described above. Also important are training
and socialization of workers, improvement measures, feedback on performance,
and shared learning, as well as upstream factors such as financial incentives. But the
key ingredient is consistency of leadership from governments, policy-makers, clinical
leaders, health system managers and civil society. This does not require a high level
of resources – it rather requires investment in a culture shift towards transparency for
continuing improvement.
These fundamentals provide the backbone for policies and practices to continually
improve health care quality. But quality must be the responsibility of all stakeholders
and institutions. It must be supported by a crystal-clear national strategic direction,
with well defined objectives and goals, and strong stakeholder engagement across the
entire health system, as well as with other sectors.
1.4 AFFORDABILITY OF QUALITY FOR ALL COUNTRIES

While high-quality health care for all may seem ambitious, it can be achieved in
all settings with good leadership, robust planning and intelligent investment. For
example, in Uganda a model involving citizens and communities in the design of
health care services has improved a range of indicators, including a 33% reduction
in child mortality (20). Costa Rica has achieved remarkable improvements in primary
care quality through a carefully planned, implemented and resourced improvement
strategy (21). These and other examples are provided later in this document.
For low- and middle-income countries, addressing quality while building universal
health coverage is a huge opportunity. A health system that is maturing and becoming
established can be influenced, steered and nurtured in the desired way. Quality can be
embedded into policies, processes and institutions as the system grows and develops.
Chapter 1
The challenge is how to learn from the experiences – both the successes but also (and
especially) the mistakes – of health systems in high-income countries. A key lesson is
that retrofitting quality into established health systems is certainly possible but can be
arduous; rather, quality must be built in from the start, along with access, coverage
and financial protection.
Of course, quality care cannot be conjured up entirely for free – it requires some
investment of capital and other resources. This investment is not beyond reach, even
for the poorest countries. The costs of poor quality to people’s lives, to health systems
and to societies are massive. If applied intelligently, investment in quality will deliver
better individual and population health, and value for money; the return on investment
in ensuring high-quality care is likely to far outweigh the costs. Better outcomes also
further economic and social development; for example, healthier people are more
productive at work, and healthier children perform better at school. So striving for
universal quality health coverage is not just an investment in better health – it is a
commitment to building a healthier society and a healthier world.
20
My Quality
Ms Cecilia Rodriguez, Executive Director
‘Me Muevo’ Foundation
Eight years ago, when she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune
disease that causes inflammation, swelling and acute pain in the joints, Cecilia
Rodriguez was Director of a primary health care facility. “I had very bad rheumatoid
arthritis and spent a lot of time in bed,” says Rodriguez, who was in her thirties when
she first experienced the painful symptoms. “I realized that what I had been promoting
as a health administrator was very different from what I needed as a patient.”
Rheumatoid arthritis touches people of all ages. Its exact causes are not known, but
genetic and environmental factors may play a role. Up to 1% of the world’s population
is affected.1 In Chile, where Rodriguez lives, 100 000 people are living with this lifelong
condition.
For people with chronic diseases, quality health care can be defined as “an accurate
equilibrium between clinical best practices and what is best for the patient, determined
with the patient,” Rodriguez explains. “We don’t always need doctors who have all the
answers. We need people who understand how we are coping with our condition.”
Above all, she believes patients suffering from chronic conditions that have
a huge impact on daily life need to feel in control of their treatment.
“As a patient, I know what I want to achieve. Clinicians can
help me understand if I can achieve it and help me do so.
For me, that’s the best quality of health care.”
Cecilia Rodriguez and her sister Lorena, who had
been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis a few
years earlier, established a non-profit organization
to support people affected by the same condition
and advocate for improved patient care. “We
called the NGO ‘Me Muevo’ (‘I move’) because we
learned that with this condition you have to keep
your body moving, but also because ‘I move’ means
‘I take action’”, she says.
1. www.rheumatoidarthritis.org.
‘Me Muevo’ is part of a growing movement of
patient-led organizations in Chile. Rodriguez acted
as spokesperson for an alliance of associations that
successfully lobbied to make prescription drugs more
affordable. In 2016, Chile adopted the ‘Ricarte Soto
Law’ on high-cost treatments. “Now I only pay US$ 200
a year for all my medications, instead of US$ 1500 per
month,” Rodriguez says.
“Health care systems tend to be geared towards treating acute
illnesses, and are rarely organized to help patients with lifelong diseases
overcome the hurdles of daily life,” Rodriguez explains.
She cites the example of her sister who works and has to travel to three locations – a
process that takes at least five hours – to collect her monthly prescription drugs. “In
this case, quality of care would mean being able to pick up all her medications from
the primary health care facility near her house, on a Saturday morning,” she says.
Rodriguez also promotes enabling patients to enter notes into their medical records
between medical appointments to help physicians adjust their treatment. “If I could
write that I had had a flare-up and say how I had dealt with it, my doctor would have
that on record when I saw her three or four months later,” she says.
After Rodriguez attended a chronic disease self-management course in the United
States, which helped her better cope with the effects of her disease, her organization
worked to make the programme available to patients in her own country. “Investing
in teaching self-management can reduce overall costs. That is why we are bringing
this programme to Chile,” she says. As a result, seven hundred people benefited from
this training through the public system, last year.
Image on previous page: © Rawpixel / iStock
22
Chapter 2 About this document
Chapter 2
About this document
Recognizing the global gap in understanding, measuring and improving quality of

health care services, WHO, OECD and the World Bank have joined efforts to produce
this document – Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal
health coverage.
2.1 OBJECTIVES
This document has been developed with the following objectives:
• to provide governments with a description of the quality of health services and

their importance to achieving broad public health goals, within the context of
universal health coverage;
• to provide governments with a picture of evidence-based approaches that can
ensure and improve quality of health services;
• to make a call for action at national and international levels.
2.2 SCOPE
This document is intended for policy-makers who want to bring the fundamentals
of health care quality improvement into their health systems. Therefore, it looks at
the quality of health care services at the foundation. The document does not aim to
provide technical guidance for front-line health care professionals, though they may
find useful information herein. Nor does it examine the implications of quality for
specific technical areas.
2.3 CONTENT
The document begins with a chapter on the background to quality in health care
services (Chapter 1), followed by a brief description of the document (Chapter 2).
The main body of the publication comprises three chapters on key quality themes
(Chapters 3–5), followed by a quality call to action in Chapter 6.
• Chapter 3: Global state of health care quality. In this chapter a global picture
of quality in health care services is provided. Data are presented to show that
quality of care in most countries, particularly low- and middle-income countries,
is suboptimal, and improvement in quality is associated with better health
outcomes.
• Chapter 4: Building quality into the foundations of health systems. This

chapter describes how mechanisms to assure, monitor and continually improve
quality must be built into the foundations of health systems, and addresses key
issues that require attention to improve the quality of health care at country
level.
• Chapter 5: Understanding levers to improve quality. Quality is a complex

and multifaceted concept that requires the design and simultaneous deployment
of combinations of discrete interventions. This chapter highlights the importance
of driving quality improvement through national policy and strategy and presents
a range of levers for quality improvement.
• Chapter 6: The quality call to action. A quality call to action is put forward
to health policy-makers seeking to achieve the goal of access to high-quality,
people-centred health services for all. This is offered with a sense of urgency, for
if we do not act now, achievement of public health goals will be at stake.
24
Those chapters are followed by an annex, which provides a set of improvement
interventions that have been selected for their potential impact on quality by reducing
harm, improving front-line delivery of health care services, and building systemwide
capacity for quality improvement. The illustrative interventions point to some of the
options and possibilities available to health system leaders, managers, practitioners or
policy-makers intent on advancing quality of care.
Chapter 3 Global state
of health care quality
Chapter 3
Global state of health care quality
“What good does it do to offer free maternal care and have a high proportion of
babies delivered in health facilities if the quality of care is substandard or even
dangerous?”
Margaret Chan, former WHO Director-General, World Health Assembly, May 2012
3.1 THE QUALITY IMPERATIVE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH

COVERAGE
Between 2000 and 2015, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) accelerated
global progress towards attaining population health goals in low- and middle-income
countries. Globally, child mortality fell by 53%, maternal mortality fell by 43%, and
new HIV infections declined by over 38% (22). However, progress was highly unequal.
In poor, rural, and hard-to-reach populations, preventable mortality remained high. For
example, for children aged under 5 years in low- and middle-income countries there
are significant differences in mortality between those living in the poorest households
compared to those living to the richest households, between those whose mothers
were the least educated compared to the most educated, and between those living in
urban areas compared to rural areas (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 Median under-5 mortality across dimensions of inequality, 2005–2012*

Deaths per
1000 live births
Mother’s Place of
Economic status education** residence Sex
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Quintile 1 (poorest)
Quintile 2
Quintile 3
Quintile 4
Quintile 5 (richest)
No education
Primary school
Secondary school+
Rurual
Urban
Male
Female
* Median value of 49 selected countries

** Data are not available for 10 countries
Source: World Health Organization (22).
Systematic assessments of essential health services in high-mortality countries revealed

major deficiencies in the quality of care received. In one such assessment across eight
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, quality-adjusted (effective) coverage averaged 28%
for antenatal care, 26% for family planning, and 21% for sick child care, and was
substantially lower than crude service coverage (23). Over 40% of facility-based deliveries
28
in five countries in sub-Saharan Africa took place in primary care facilities with major
gaps in resources and technical expertise (24). The MDGs did not include a specific focus
on measuring and improving quality of care, yet these deficits in quality of care have had
negative implications for translating increases in coverage to better population health.
Poor-quality services have been shown to predict a higher risk of neonatal mortality in
Africa (25). Also, an increase in institutional deliveries from 14% to 80% in India did not
reduce maternal and child mortality due to the poor quality of care provided at health
facilities (26). In essence, poor quality of care is responsible for persistently high levels of
maternal and child mortality in low- and middle-income countries, despite substantial
increases in access to essential health services achieved during the MDG era.
In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a new development agenda:
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The SDGs
comprise a broader range of economic, social and environmental objectives than
the MDGs and set a new health goal, to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-
being for all at all ages”. Universal health coverage is considered fundamental to the
SDGs. Simply defined, universal health coverage means ensuring that all people and
communities can use the promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative
health services they need, of sufficient quality to be effective, while also ensuring that
the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship. In explicitly
focusing on the quality of health care services, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development recognizes the urgent need to place quality of care in the fabric of
national, regional, and global action towards promoting well-being for all.
While global attention has focused on universal health coverage, at the local
level, the devastating outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa reinforced the
strong case for quality of care. In Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, gaps
in service delivery and the accompanying collapse of public trust
in health systems presented herculean challenges to response
and recovery efforts during the Ebola outbreak. For instance,
assessments of the Sierra Leonean health system revealed a low
density of human resource for health, low capacity for disease
surveillance in the community, infrastructural deficits in health
facilities, and weak supply chains for essential medicines (27).
All three countries have since emphasized universal access
to quality health service delivery to strengthen their ability to
prevent large-scale outbreaks in the future, placing infection
prevention and control and patient safety as key priorities.
Following the outbreak, Liberia has developed an investment plan to
build health system resilience and is working towards implementation
of a health equity fund that places quality at its core (Box 3.1). The West
African response to the Ebola outbreak demonstrates the very real and strong
linkages between health system resilience, quality of care, and global health security.
Achieving the SDG health targets will require new financial investments, increasing over
time from an initial US$ 134 billion to US$ 371 billion annually by 2030 (28). Poor-quality
care is inefficient, wasting scarce resources and increasing the cost of expanding health
coverage. Inefficiencies are introduced by unnecessary care that makes no difference
to health outcomes. For instance, in low- and middle-income countries, overuse of
antibiotics to treat acute respiratory tract infections adds an average of 36% to the
cost of care (29). Errors in service delivery may also lead to direct harm to health, at an
extra cost to the health system. A recent analysis of OECD countries indicates that more
than 10% of hospital expenditure goes to correcting preventable medical mistakes or
treating infections that people catch in hospitals (3). At the 2017 OECD Health Ministerial
Chapter 3
Box 3.1 Liberia: embedding quality in the post-Ebola health agenda

Before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, Liberia, a country recovering from years of
political and economic instability, had made progress in improving the health
outcomes of its population. However, the outbreak highlighted persistent health
system constraints in this small West African nation. There was a lack of an
adequately skilled health workforce in health facilities and within communities;
there were no sustainable financing mechanisms; and there was an absence of
necessary supply chain structures and integrated health information systems. In
addition, infection prevention and control was largely absent where most needed,
and linkages between health services and the community were inadequate.
These weaknesses compromised the provision of quality service delivery and
allowed the epidemic to proliferate rapidly.
In response to the outbreak, the Investment Plan for Building a Resilient Health
System in Liberia 2015–2021 was developed. The plan aimed to restore the
gains lost in the outbreak, tackle pre-existing vulnerabilities, improve community
confidence in health systems, and provide health security. A key strategic aim of
the Investment Plan is to accelerate universal access to safe and quality services
through improving the capacity of the health network for the provision of essential
services. The Government of Liberia recognizes that successful implementation
of the Investment Plan – including a strong focus on quality of care – is essential
to prevent, to detect, and to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks.
Meeting, ministers acknowledged the intersection of the quality and efficiency agendas,
agreeing that quality measurement and improvement should be at the centre of efforts
to realize health outcomes at a high value for money (30).
Investing in high-quality health systems for universal health coverage has the potential
to accelerate progress in promoting health while strengthening global health security
and maximizing value for money.
3.2 DEFINING QUALITY OF CARE

Quality of care is the degree to which health services for individuals and populations
increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current
professional knowledge (31). This definition implies that quality of care can be
measured, is ultimately aimed at health improvements rather than simply increasing
service inputs or refining system processes, and should reflect the desires of key
stakeholders, including service users and communities. By including health services
in general, this definition of quality of care spans both curative and preventive care,
and facility and community-based care for individuals and populations. This scope is
particularly important in countries facing an increasing burden of noncommunicable
disease and whose health systems must provide services across the life course, including
risk reduction, screening, disease management, rehabilitation and palliative care. As
there is a steadily growing evidence base on the effectiveness of various modalities for
disease prevention and control, this definition of quality of care also acknowledges the
need for mechanisms to incorporate new evidence into service delivery systematically.
What characteristics of health services are indicative of quality? This document
identifies seven measurable characteristics of health services that increase the likelihood
of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge.
30
Figure 3.2 Elements of health care quality
Effectiveness
Efficiency Safety
QUALITY People-
Integration centredness
Equity Timeliness
Source: Institute of Medicine (32).
While multiple quality elements have been described over decades, there is growing
acknowledgement that quality health services across the world should be effective,
safe, and people-centred. In addition, in order to realize the benefits of quality health
care, health services should be timely, equitable, integrated and efficient (Figure 3.2)
(32, 33).
Consider Fatima, an 80-year-old woman who has lived alone, since retiring 15 years
ago. She has long-standing type 2 diabetes mellitus, as well as hypercholesterolemia
and essential hypertension. She generally stays indoors and takes only occasional walks
due to her poor eyesight and recently-developed back pain. Over the past two years,
she has twice been admitted to hospital for congestive cardiac failure. She does not
monitor her blood pressure or blood glucose as advised, eats convenience foods, and has
missed multiple follow-up appointments since her discharge. Today, Fatima has come
to the clinic complaining that she is out-of-breath, that her chest feels unusually tight,
that she has trouble lying flat. She has has also mentioned having difficulty keeping
track of her monthly bills. The attending nurse notices that Fatima repeats herself and
has trouble finding the right words to describe her symptoms. Over the course of the
next four weeks, Fatima will receive care from a myriad of health providers, including
a dietician, primary care provider, cardiologist and social worker. The following points
illustrate what high-quality health care for Fatima might look like through the lens of
the seven elements of quality.
• High-quality care for Fatima is effective, thus, it would be offered based
on scientific knowledge and evidence-based guidelines. The care team would
adhere to clinical pathways for older patients with heart failure and significant
comorbidities, developed from evidence and experience in managing similar
cases. The team would reassure Fatima that she would be receiving evidence-
based care and that a systematic process would be followed to arrive at an
integrated management plan across the various providers taking care of her.
• High-quality care for Fatima is safe, that is, it minimizes harm, including
preventable injuries and medical errors, to the patient. In every facility, there would
be clear guidelines to prevent hospital-acquired infections and medical errors. For
example, a thorough review of her outpatient medications at admission was
made to prevent interactions with medications used during her inpatient care.
Chapter 3
• High-quality care for Fatima is people-centred, that is, it respects and

responds to her preferences, needs and values. Fatima might understandably be
worried and ask many questions. The multidisciplinary care team would listen
to her questions and concerns, answering patiently, and codevelop the care
management plan with her active involvement.
• High-quality care for Fatima is timely, that is, it would keep delays in
providing and receiving services to a minimum. For example, contact with each
provider involved in her care would be managed by an efficient patient flow
system for scheduling or modifying visits and for notifying clients of projected
waiting times. Situations requiring urgent intervention would be recognized and
acted on as quickly as possible. With proper planning, Fatima would not have to
experience long waiting times during follow-up visits.
• High-quality care for Fatima is equitable, thus, the quality of care she
receives would not vary according to personal characteristics such as gender,
race, ethnicity, geographical location and socioeconomic status. The services
received by Fatima would reflect evidence on the potential health benefits of the
treatment only, and nothing else.
• High-quality care for Fatima is integrated, thus, the care she receives across
facilities and providers would be coordinated. Post-discharge, the social worker
would evaluate options to support her care plan, and connect her with agencies
that offer dementia-related care and other services as needed.
• High-quality care for Fatima is efficient, and therefore avoids waste of
resources, including equipment, medicines, energy and ideas. Each of her
medical providers would be able to track previous tests and procedures she has
undergone via an interoperable electronic medical record system, preventing
repetition and waste of resources. Use of generic medicines would be stipulated
in the clinical guidelines. Her care would be provided by a cohesive team, each
working to their strengths and taking on tasks that match their competencies.
In summary, high-quality health care is the right care, at the right time, in a coordinated
way, responding to the service users’ needs and preferences, while minimizing harm and
resource waste. High-quality health care ultimately aims at increasing the probability
of desired health outcomes. The quest for high-quality health care recognizes that
such improvement is a continuous or dynamic rather than a static process. Regardless
of the income level of a country, if there is room for improving health outcomes, the
quality of care can also be increased.
3.3 GLOBAL PICTURE OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY

Assessment of trends in the global state of health care quality requires consensus on the
definition and measurement of indicators for quality, comparable across countries.
However, there is no dataset with uniformly defined quality indicators collected
globally. There is also no agreement on a minimum set of standardized
indicators for quality of care to monitor progress towards attainment of the
health-related SDGs across countries. However, there is a growing body
of work aimed at identifying indicators to support national, regional and
international quality improvement efforts, including the OECD Health Care
Quality Indicators Project, the World Bank Service Delivery Indicators, the
WHO Global Health Observatory, and Demographic and Health Surveys (34–37).
Using data from these sources, nationally representative household surveys, and
empirical research, the state of quality of health services globally is described below.
32
This description focuses largely on process and outcome measures of quality of
care – that is, actions in health care and the effects of these actions on desired health
outcomes. These measures are examined in relation to the seven domains of quality of
care: effectiveness, safety, people-centredness, timeliness, integration of care, equity
and efficiency. The scientific and policy literature also examines structural measures of
quality of care that form the context of service delivery, including equipment, human
resources, incentives and organizational characteristics (38). This document considers
these structural factors to be foundations of high-quality care processes and outcomes.
Chapter 4 addresses the foundations of high-quality care.
3.3.1 Are health services effective?

When care is ineffective, that is, when providers do not adhere to evidence-based
guidelines, this may reflect a lack of knowledge of guidelines or a lack of compliance
regardless of knowledge. The effectiveness of care can be assessed using inspection
of medical records, patient exit interviews, direct observation of provider–client
interactions, standardized patients or clinical vignettes. While clinical vignettes
measure the provider’s knowledge of evidence-based protocols for defined medical
cases, other forms of measurement predominantly capture compliance with these
guidelines. In particular, standardized patients provide consistent cases of illness to
providers and allow for comparison of quality of care across providers. This method
of effectiveness measurement is also free from observation and recall bias (39). The
differences in prevalent diseases across countries and variations in clinical presentation
within diseases prevent systematic comparison of the effectiveness of care across
providers and countries. However, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that
there are gaps in provider understanding of and compliance with evidence-based
guidelines in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. For example, in Kenya, only
16% of providers correctly diagnosed all five patient cases that were presented in
clinical vignettes to assess provider knowledge (Figure 3.3) (40). In a study of physicians
of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United States of America, the
mean percentage of correct diagnosis for four clinical vignettes was 48% and 67%
respectively (41). Regardless of the method of measurement, there is also a significant
gap between provider knowledge and actual practice in service delivery. This finding
holds across countries, including Denmark, India, Kenya, the Netherlands and the
United Republic of Tanzania (42–45).
Figure 3.3 Number of clinical vignettes correctly diagnosed by Kenyan providers

(total number of vignettes: five)
Number of
clinical vignettes
1 case 0.5%
2 cases 11.5%
3 cases 30.3%
4 cases 42.1%
5 cases 15.6%
0 10 20 30 40 50 %
Source: Martin and Pimhidzai (41).
Chapter 3
3.3.2 Are health services safe?

Patient harm is the 14th leading contributor to the global disease burden. The majority
of this burden falls on low- and middle-income countries (Figure 3.4) (14). The main
causes of harm differ between settings, including medication and diagnostic errors
in primary care, pressure injury and adverse events in long-term care, and hospital-
acquired infections and wrong-site surgery in hospital care (46–48). The scale of unsafe
events in health services is considerable (14). In addition to the direct cost of treating
adverse events, there are additional costs that result from loss of productivity and
diminished trust in the health system. Approximately 15% of hospital expenditure
and activity in OECD countries is attributed to safety failures. However, many adverse
events are preventable. Evidence suggests that more than one in three adverse events
in low- and middle-income countries occurs in non-complex situations and up to
83% may be preventable (49). The costs of safety failures also far exceed the cost
of prevention. Improving patient safety in Medicare hospitals in the United States is
estimated to have saved US$ 28 billion between 2010 and 2015.
Figure 3.4 Burden of disease caused by adverse events, 2015
High income
18%
Low income 38%

19% Upper middle income
25%
Lower middle income
Note: Percentage of average DALYs/country.

Source: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2015.
3.3.3 Are health services people-centred?

The degree to which the needs and preferences of service users are systematically
incorporated into health services differs between high-, middle-, and low-income
countries. Health systems in high-income countries have introduced measures
and institutions to monitor patient experiences and perceptions on their specific
medical conditions and general health. While expectations and approaches to
people-centred care vary between countries, most service users in OECD countries
report a positive experience with regard to time spent with the provider, easy-to-
understand explanations, opportunities to raise concerns, and involvement in their
care (Figure 3.5) (50). Attention to respectful, compassionate and otherwise people-
centred care is not as prevalent in low- and middle-income countries. For example,
a growing body of research on respectful maternity care indicates that women
experience poor interactions with health care providers and exclusion from care
decision-making, and are often not informed about the details of their care (51, 52).
34
Figure 3.5 Doctor providing easy-to-understand explanations
(2013 or nearest year)
Luxembourg1 95.5
Belgium1 95.1
Portugal1 90.9
New Zealand1 88.2
United Kingdom 2
88.0
Germany 2
87.7
Australia 2
86.0
United States 2
83.9
Netherlands 2
83.9
Norway 2
83.3
Canada 2
83.0
Czech Republic 1
81.8
Switzerland 2 81.4
OECD19 81.3
Sweden2 80.5
Israel1 79.7
France 2 78.8
Estonia 1, 2 67.4
Spain 1, 2 62.1
Poland 1, 2 47.9
0 20 40 60 80 100 Age-standardized rates

per 100 patients
Note: 95% confidence intervals represented by .

1. National sources.
2. Data refer to patient experiences with regular doctor.
Source: Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey 2013 and other national sources.
3.3.4 Are health services timely?

Waiting times for elective and emergency procedures have been shown to predict
satisfaction among service users (53–55). In emergency situations, delays in receiving
appropriate treatment may also lead to preventable deaths (56). Nonetheless, waiting
times for different health services vary across OECD countries. For example, in 2015,
the mean waiting time for hip replacement was around 42 days in the Netherlands,
but 290 days in Estonia and over 400 days in Chile and Poland. Time trends show that
reductions in waiting time have been experienced in Finland and New Zealand while
this trend has converged in recent years, with relative stability in rates since 2008
in many countries, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Figure 3.6) (2). Much less work has been done to compare service
delays across low- and middle-income countries. Empirical research from individual
countries indicates that waiting times are relatively long. For example, in a study of an
emergency department in Barbados, a median of 10 minutes was required for triage,
213 minutes for laboratory results, and 178 minutes to be seen by a doctor (57). Also,
in an outpatient department in Nigeria, 74% of service users waited between 60 and
120 minutes to be registered and additional time to see a service provider (58).
Chapter 3
Figure 3.6 Trends in average waiting times for hip replacement
Days
200
150
Finland
100 United Kingdom
New Zealand
Denmark
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Source: Health at a glance 2017 (2).
3.3.5 Are health services equitable?

Gaps exist in health care quality everywhere in the world, but they are even more serious
for disadvantaged populations. The United States National Healthcare Disparities
Reports have tracked the quality of care since 2010. In 2015, half of the quality
measures showed no change or had worsened amongst low-income populations.
More than half of the quality measured showed no change or had worsened for
rural populations (59). In Canada, patients with myocardial infarction from indigenous
groups were less likely to have received recommended treatment, including cardiac
angiography and revascularization procedures (60). In Kenya, the quality of maternal
health services is lowest in impoverished counties, where only 17% of women had
access to minimally adequate delivery care (Figure 3.7) (61). Also, in India, people who
live in households of low socioeconomic status in poor communities are less likely to
use knowledgeable health care providers (62).
Figure 3.7 Structural and process quality of maternal services by county poverty level in Kenya
Quality
score
Quality of
maternal care Quality of Quality of
infrastructure antenatal care delivery care
1.0
80%+ poverty
60-80% poverty
0.8 40-60% poverty
20-40% poverty
0.6 0-20% poverty
0.4
0.2
0.0
Source: Sharma et al. (63).
36
3.3.6 Are health services integrated?
With emerging chronic and noncommunicable diseases, more people are living with
multiple and complex chronic conditions that require coordination of care across
all levels and throughout their life course. Continuity of care and care coordination
can improve the care experience of people living with such conditions and support
needs. However, substantial gaps in the coordination of health care exist, even in high-
income countries. A survey of patients with complex care needs in 11 high-income
countries found coordination problems, such as test results or records not available
at appointment or duplicate tests ordered, providers failing to share important
information with each other, and specialists not having information about medical
history or regular doctors not informed about specialist care (63). An analysis of
linked primary care and secondary care data on older adults (aged 62–82 years) from
200 general practices in England reported that patients who saw the same general
practitioner a greater proportion of the time experienced fewer admissions to hospital
for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (64).
3.3.7 Are health services efficient?

The World health report 2010 estimated that about 20–40% of all health sector
resources are wasted (65). The leading causes of inefficiency in service delivery include
inappropriate medicine use, suboptimal human resources mix, overuse or oversupply
of equipment, corruption, and underuse of infrastructure. Unwarranted geographical
variation in the prevalence of procedures and care intensity provides an indirect estimate
of overuse and hence inefficiency. For example, in India, the rates of antibiotic use for
acute diarrhoea in public facilities is 43% but rises to 69% in private facilities. Also, there
is a ninefold variation in the use of percutaneous coronary interventions internationally
and a fivefold variation in the use of coronary bypass grafting across OECD countries (66).
These differences are not explained by the variation in the cardiovascular disease burden.
Inefficient health care due to overuse and other causes has negative implications for
population health outcomes. Life expectancy at birth could be raised by more than two
years on average in OECD countries while holding health care spending constant if all
countries were to become as efficient as the best performers (67).
3.4 CONCLUSION
Despite the substantial increase in access to essential health services achieved during
the MDG era, there are high levels of preventable mortality and morbidity that can be
addressed through quality efforts. For example, the remaining burden of maternal and
child mortality in low- and middle-income countries is largely due to the poor quality
of health services. The SDGs explicitly incorporate a focus on the quality of health
services in attaining universal health coverage in all countries.
High-quality health services involve the right care, at the right time, responding to the
service users’ needs and preferences, while minimizing harm and resource waste. Quality
health care increases the likelihood of desired health outcomes and is consistent with
seven measurable characteristics: effectiveness, safety, people-centredness, timeliness,
equity, integration of care and efficiency. Regardless of the income level of a country, if
there is room for improving health outcomes, the quality of care can also be increased.
Efforts to monitor trends in health care quality for the SDG agenda will be ineffective
in the absence of consensus on key indicators that are comparable across countries
and are collected on a regular basis. Empirical evidence from the growing body of
work on quality measurement indicates that there are gaps globally in all the domains
of quality health services. These gaps present opportunities to improve the quality of
care and the health of populations.
My Quality
Mr Bafana Msibi, Executive Manager for Compliance Inspections,
Office of Health Standards Compliance
South Africa
“In any health system, nursing is the backbone of the system,” says Bafana Msibi,
Executive Manager for Compliance Inspections at South Africa’s Office of Health
Standards Compliance. “In our country especially, and in other countries in Africa,
primary health care is nurse-driven.”
As a health care executive with over 15 years’ experience, working for an independent
body whose mission is to ensure quality of care and compliance with health standards
in both public and private health care facilities, Bafana Msibi is well placed to assess
the important contribution made by nurses to quality of health care.
He defines quality of care, in short, as “making use of the available
resources to provide the best care to users.” Msibi acknowleges
that good patient care requires a holistic approach that
sometimes goes beyond clinical treatment. “You might
see a patient presenting with symptoms, and as you
try to treat her, you may find that these symptoms are
caused by stress,” he says. Because nurses spend more
time with patients than any other clinicians, their role
is crucial. In addition, they are directly involved in
the implementation of precautionary measures that
promote a safe medical environment in their daily
work.
In South Africa, all registered nurses have to undertake
one year of community service after they complete their
four-year degree. Working under the supervision of experienced
professionals who mentor them, the new graduates are exposed to
a wide range of medical issues. They also develop a solid understanding of
the communities they serve. The knowledge and skills young nurses acquire during this
period prepare them well for the demands of their profession.
“When I was young, I worked in a clinic in a rural area. If patients came with a
problem that required the next level of care, we would refer them to the doctor or call
an ambulance to take them to a hospital. There are clinics in most areas, and where
there are none, mobile clinics carry out visits. Most of these clinics are nurse-run,”
Msibi says.
38
In South Africa, some nurses hold high-level jobs as CEOs
of hospitals or district managers, Msibi says, but more are
needed in leadership positions. “The nursing profession needs
to produce leaders for the health care system. They must be
developed through the system, know it inside out, and they must
also understand the processes of policy development within it.”
Bafana Msibi, who was able to conduct a study in a state hospital when he was
studying for his Master’s in Public Health, would like more nurses to enjoy similar
opportunities to undertake research. Having more nurses involved in policy‑making as
members of advisory committees, commissions and boards would also contribute to
further improvements in the quality of care, he believes.
Msibi’s Office of Health Standards Compliance is currently negotiating a Memorandum
of Understanding with the South African Nursing Council and other bodies representing
medical professions to enhance cooperation across health services. Conducting joint
inspections of hospitals, for example, could increase efficiency and help support high
standards of care. “When we develop models and frameworks to improve quality, we
must make sure they incorporate everyone and put the values of the profession up to
the front,” Msibi says. “In the end, we are all interested in providing quality care and
if you want to have quality, you have to ensure there is good team work.”
Image on previous page: © ranplett / iStock
4
Building quality
Chapter into the foundations
of health systems
Chapter 4
Building quality into the foundations of health systems
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Poor-quality services – even if made available at an affordable cost – are an
impediment to achieving effective universal health coverage. This is because
communities will not use services that they mistrust and that are of little benefit
to them. Mechanisms to assure, monitor and continually improve quality must
be built into the foundations of health care systems.
This chapter considers five such foundations critical to any health service: health
care workers; health care facilities; medicines, devices and other technologies;
information systems; and financing. Mere availability of resources is not enough.
Conscious and continuous effort is needed to ensure that they are used in ways that
are effective, safe and individually tailored to patients’ needs. Governance, as well as
the tools, techniques and political economy of reform, is explored in the next chapter.
A comprehensive system of care allows people to access a continuum of care
across their life course, comprising health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis,
treatment, disease management, rehabilitation, emotional and spiritual support, and
palliative care. Three important considerations should underlie the design of any
health care system: services should be built to meet local needs; accessible and high-
quality primary care should be the bedrock for all other services; and individuals and
communities should be engaged in the design, delivery, assessment, and improvement
of each and every service (68). The principles of quality improvement must infuse all
activities from the front line to the system level.
4.2 FOUNDATIONS FOR HIGH-QUALITY CARE
4.2.1 Health care workers that are motivated and supported

to provide quality care
Skilled doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are essential for delivering
high-quality health care to individuals, families and communities. There is currently an
estimated global shortfall of 2.5 million doctors, 9 million nurses and midwives, and
6 million allied health professionals. As a result, basic care is often absent or poorly
delivered (69). The problem is most severe in poorer countries (Figure 4.1). Even in
developed economies, health workers are too often concentrated in cities, with the
consequence that quality of care is often poorer in rural and remote areas. Even within
cities, certain locations – for example slums – have a particular deficiency of health
workers.
Community health workers can help alleviate workforce shortages. They are individuals
who have been trained to deliver specific health care services, or to undertake
surveillance and treatment for communicable or noncommunicable diseases. They
usually come from the communities that they serve, thus providing a potential bridge
to community engagement efforts. Community health workers can overcome cultural
and linguistic barriers, whilst expanding access to care and providing new forms of
employment. Evidence shows that community health workers are capable of delivering
safe and effective care for childhood illnesses, reducing the spread of communicable
and noncommunicable diseases, promoting nutrition, and providing family planning
services, at low cost (70). In low-resource settings, community health workers have
reduced maternal, neonatal and child mortality (71). More than 50 years’ experience
with programmes shows that these positions should be paid, not voluntary; have
specific responsibilities that are not too wide ranging; receive training, continuing
education and ongoing supervision; be integrated into primary health care teams; and
be part of data feedback loops (72).
42
Figure 4.1 Global density and distribution of skilled health professionals
by WHO region, 2005-2016
Skilled health professionals density
Global average: 52.8
Africa
Americas
South-East Asia
Europe
Eastern Mediterranean
Western Pacific
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Density per 10 000 population
Density per 10 000 population

Distribution by country (in selected WHO region)
60
40
20 Regional average: 12.8
0
Burundi
Comoros
Eritrea
Equatorial Guinea
Lesotho
South Sudan
São Tomé and Príncipe
Niger
Ethiopia
Central African Republic
Sierra Leone
Malawi
Chad
Madagascar
Togo
Senegal
Guinea
United Republic of Tanzania
Mozambique
Liberia
Mali
Cameroon
Côte d’Ivoire
Burkina Faso
Guinea-Bissau
Uganda
Benin
Mauritania
Rwanda
Zambia
Ghana
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Congo
Zimbabwe
Swaziland
Angola
Gambia
Kenya
Nigeria
Cabo Verde
Botswana
Algeria
Namibia
Gabon
Mauritius
Seychelles
South Africa
Source: Global Health Observatory (34).
The availability of staff does not in itself assure good care. Health workers can spend
little time with patients, lack the ability to make correct diagnoses, or prescribe
inappropriate treatment (73). Rural clinicians in southern China spent an average of
only 1.6 minutes consulting with patients and asked only 18% of essential questions.
A fully correct diagnosis was provided in only one in four consultations (44).
Beyond simple headcounts of the health workforce, other critical aspects include:
• accessibility, or how easily people can see or speak to a health professional with
the right skills, whether in person or via video and telephone links;
• acceptability, or whether people feel they have been treated with respect and
have had their views taken into account when it comes to decisions related to
their health;
• quality, or the knowledge, skills and attitudes of health professionals according
to accepted norms, and as perceived by users;
• skills mix and teamwork, or whether the group of health professionals (and,
in some settings, lay workers) together have the knowledge and skills to manage
local mortality and morbidity patterns;
• enabling environments, or the physical, legal, financial, organizational, political
and cultural conditions that support high-quality care.
Chapter 4
The first step in building a high-quality workforce with the right skills mix should be a
comprehensive national workforce strategy addressing gaps in numbers, distribution
and retention, both in the short term and the longer term. Health professional
workforce strategies must not deprive other health systems by attracting qualified
staff away from their home countries’ health systems. Workforce policies can take
years to bear fruit. The most effective and sustainable solution to rural shortages lies in
training students who are themselves from rural communities, including establishing
clinical schools in remote areas.
Modernizing curricula for pre-service training of health care workers to ensure that
they acquire core medical and nursing competencies is an obvious starting point and
yet remains a challenge in many countries (Box 4.1) (74). Another priority is continuous
professional development to ensure that health professionals maintain and improve
their knowledge and skills – spanning a wide range of competencies – throughout
their working lives. Increasingly, health systems are making continuous professional
development – and even recertification – mandatory. Even where continuous
professional development is not in place, policy-makers can work with professional
associations to encourage its use and evaluate its impact (75). Finally, integrating the
principles of quality and quality improvement into pre-service and in-service education
and training curricula and programmes is vital in building a competent workforce that
is capable of delivering high-quality health services.
Box 4.1 Case study: training and retaining health care workers
in underserved areas of the Philippines
Two medical schools in the Philippines have a primary focus on recruiting,

training and employing students in underserved areas of the country. Ateneo de
Zamboanga University School of Medicine and University of the Philippines Manila
School of Health Sciences are part of the Training for Health Equity Network
(THENet). This international network of medical schools stipulates that the needs
of underserved communities should be integrated with all phases and aspects of
medical education, from the physical location of the school to the health issues
guiding the curriculum. Also, there should be reliance on community-based
practitioners for teaching and mentorship.
Ateneo de Zamboanga University School of Medicine opened in 1994 in
Zamboanga City, on the southwest tip of the southernmost of the Philippine
islands, bringing hope of greater access to health care to a population of
3.2 million people. The nearest existing medical school was 400 kilometres away.
At the time, 80% of the region’s 100 municipalities had no doctor. The region
was plagued by high rates of infant mortality and communicable disease. In 2011,
a review of the cumulative 164 graduates found that 85% were practising in the
region, with half in rural and remote areas; overall, 90% remained practising in
the Philippines versus 32% of graduates nationally. Between 1994 and 2008,
the infant mortality rate in Zamboanga declined by approximately 90%, far
exceeding the national average decline of 50%. The school continues to recruit
students from the region and follows a curriculum that is deeply integrated with
local community health needs.
Source: World Health Organization (76); Cristobal and Worley (77).
44
4.2.2 Accessible and well-equipped health care facilities
Substantial variation persists in service availability and readiness. Within and across
countries, the density of hospitals and clinics is very different. Basic health care may
be many hours away from poorer, rural communities. In sub-Saharan Africa, basic
equipment such as a thermometer and stethoscope is available in slightly over half of
facilities in Ethiopia, yet in Burkina Faso it is found in almost all facilities (Figure 4.2).
The availability and readiness of services to operate is a necessary condition to deliver
quality care. However, as discussed throughout this document, it is not sufficient to
deliver quality services (78).
Figure 4.2 Variations in availability of basic equipment across health care facilities
in sub-Saharan Africa
%
100
89.2 87.0
90 86.2 84.9 83.2 82.0
87.0
81.3
85.3
78.5
80 74.5 72.8 70.5
70 67.0 68.2
63.3
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Benin
Burkina Faso
Congo
Ethiopia
Guinea
Kenya
Madagascar
Mauritania
Malawi
Niger
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Togo
Tanzania
Uganda
Source: Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (79). Zambia
The quality of health care facilities is judged first on whether the basics are present,
such as clean water, reliable electricity, good sanitation and safe waste disposal. In a
2014 survey, less than one quarter of facilities in Nigeria had reliable water, sanitation
and electricity. Indeed, WHO estimates indicate that 40% of health care facilities
in low- and middle-income countries lack improved water and nearly 20% lack
sanitation. These basic foundations are urgently required for quality of care. However,
adequate infrastructure does not necessarily equate to high-quality care. Minimum
standards need to be set and enforced, and continuous improvement encouraged.
Accreditation, inspection and other forms of external assessment and certification are
widely used to evaluate health care facilities against explicit standards. The strength
of the evidence supporting one-off external assessments is however limited (80, 81).
Accordingly, health care systems are increasingly moving to more continuous and
formative evaluations of providers’ performance, including measurement of patient
outcomes and experiences (15).
4.2.3 Medicines, devices and technologies that are safe

in design and use
Reliable access to safe and effective medicines, devices and technologies, including
blood transfusion, is a basic requirement for effective health care services. Actively
restricting unsafe or ineffective products is critical to patient safety. Access to, and
minimum quality standards for, medicines and other technologies have improved
but substantial gaps remain in basic provision. Extensive and serious problems with
counterfeit products complicate the issue.
Chapter 4
Standards of regulation vary greatly. For example, in some countries, antibiotics can be
bought without a prescription, fuelling unnecessary use and increasing the threat of
antimicrobial resistance (82). Even where medicine use is properly regulated, errors
affect about one in 10 prescriptions issued, mostly dose-related errors (83).
According to one report, only 30–40% of patients in countries with
developing or transitional economies are treated with medicines according
to clinical guidelines (84). The patients’ role in making medicines and devices
effective and safe is also critical. Health systems do not usually pay sufficient
attention to informing and supporting patients in their use of medicines. The
third WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge – Medication Without Harm –
was launched at the second Global Ministerial Summit on Patient Safety,
Bonn, Germany, in March 2017 with the aim of reducing severe, avoidable
medication-related harm by 50% globally in the next five years.
Medical equipment requires maintenance, user training, backup support and, eventually,
decommissioning. Donating equipment – important in some low-income countries –
raises particular concerns. Unless spare parts, consumables and staff training are
available, such equipment can be unusable or unsafe. Three out of 10 countries lack a
national authority that regulates what medical technologies can be used, and how (85).
Blood transfusions are a special case. Many low-income countries are not able to screen
blood for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis. Transfusion recipients are then at
unacceptable risk of acquiring transmissible infections.
National policies on medicines and devices help to ensure products of assured quality,
in adequate quantities and at affordable prices. Standardized processes for health
technology assessment are discussed in the next chapter. Enforceable regulatory
systems that address design and development, sale, use and disposal can be powerful
in assuring quality and safety in this area. Guidelines and checklists can encourage
appropriate use at the bedside. They should be accompanied by surveillance systems
that monitor correct use, and that can detect accidents and adverse reactions. Voluntary
non-remunerated blood donation improves the supply and safety of blood. Safety
would be transformed if all health systems adopted this method of donation (86).
The risks of transfusion are reduced by external quality assessment of the collection,
preparation and administration of blood products.
4.2.4 Information systems that continuously monitor

and drive better care
Developing timely, accurate quality measures of health care services, of users’
experiences and of outcomes achieved remains challenging, given how little
governments and donors spend on health information systems. Most OECD health
systems invest only 2–4% of total health expenditure in information systems. In most
low- and middle-income countries, the figure is less than 1% (87). As a result, data
on outcomes and quality are often not captured at all, or are collected in ways that
cannot be analysed or benchmarked because of a lack of standardized terminology.
Even when data are collected, the translation of these data into information that is
actionable for quality improvement remains a fundamental challenge.
Yet, good performance information matters to improving quality of care. The European
Health Care Outcomes, Performance and Efficiency (EuroHOPE) project found that
survival after a heart attack varied as much as twofold within a single national health
system (88). To enable hospitals and clinics to offer the same level of excellent care, richer
comparative data on variation in quality and outcomes need to be collected, interpreted
46
and used to spread best practices and support poor performers. As well as EuroHOPE,
the European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (89) and the OECD Health Care
Quality Indicators Project (35) exemplify a trend to develop such data quality schemes
globally (Box 4.2).
Box 4.2 Case study: OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project
The OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project began in 2001 with the aim
of developing international comparisons of health care quality and, thereby,
identifying and sharing best practices to monitor, assure and improve quality.
Experts engaged in the project are drawn from OECD and non-OECD countries,
international organizations including WHO, the European Commission, and
research institutes.
Around 50 indicators are reported (covering primary care, hospital care, mental
health services, patient safety and patient experiences) from around 40 countries.
Comparable health care quality indicators are published alongside other OECD
health statistics on expenditure, resources and utilization to facilitate their
interpretation.
Alongside the regular data collection, there is continuous research and development
to improve the validity, utility and comparability of health care quality indicators.
Another goal of the project is to strengthen national information infrastructures
to produce more complex and reliable indicators in an increasing number of
countries, including non-OECD countries.
Source: OECD (35).
Too often, data are left to moulder in poorly organized, paper-based systems, or are
trapped in digital silos incompatible with each other. Timely and appropriate use of
and action on information is vitally important. The Health Data Collaborative, a global
initiative led by WHO, the World Bank and the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), is addressing this challenge. By working with international
agencies and individual countries, the Health Data Collaborative seeks to harmonize
how health systems data are collected and reported globally, and aims to enable better
tracking of health system performance and progress towards the health-related targets
of the SDGs (90). Similarly, the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (79) aims at
sharing internationally comparable results on the performance of primary health care
systems globally and enabling performance improvement through sharing of results
and best practices for performance improvement.
Basic information on all births and deaths needs to be reliably registered. Effective
civil registration is the spine of a health system’s information infrastructure. Registers
monitoring the needs, interventions and outcomes for patient groups (such as those
with HIV, cancer or mental illness) can be built from this.
Civil registration allocates a unique person identifier to an individual. This allows data
from various providers over time to be linked and enables the performance of health
care services to be tracked. If legislation to protect privacy prevents anonymous data
linkage of elements of an individual’s health experience in different places and at
different times, there will be no way of evaluating an entire pathway of care (Box 4.3).
Chapter 4
Box 4.3 Case study: improving civil registration and vital statistics

in Uganda
Only one in five of the 1.5 million annual births in Uganda were registered with
the national civil registration and vital statistics system. Families often had to travel
long distances to register in person, which required a fee. A paper-based system
created frequent delays in issuing birth certificates. Even amongst registered
births, over half did not receive a birth certificate.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and Uganda Telecom implemented
the Mobile Vital Records System, which links mobile phone users and hospital
computers to a central government server. For births occurring outside health
facilities, volunteers – typically village leaders – collect and send birth information
to a government database through a free service from their mobile phones. An
official reviews the information and if it is deemed credible, then a birth certificate
is issued. The community volunteer is notified via text message. The roll-out of
the Mobile Vital Records System increased birth registration substantially, leading
to greater expansion of the programme. Now it is also implemented in schools
to reach previously unregistered children.
Source: UNICEF (92).
Effective information governance remains weak in many health systems. The use of
personal health data to monitor and improve health service performance serves an
important public purpose, but must always be done in ways that protect privacy.
National legislation is needed that protects patient privacy whilst enabling data use
and good communication with the public about data use, as well as, at global level,
standards to enhance data quality and comparability (91).
Moving from paper-based records to a unique electronic health record, usable in
multiple health care settings, will help monitor the performance of health care services.
Supporting clinicians, managers and policy-makers in interpreting service data and
using them for quality improvement will be also vital.
Special action is needed to improve patient safety. Encouraging transparency when
things go wrong, by building a blame-free and learning culture, is a prerequisite. This
can be supported if analyses focus on understanding the root causes of adverse events
by exploring the multiple causal and contributory factors that provoke errors, some of
which result in major harm to patients. Agreeing on an internationally standardized
terminology will also enhance the ability to classify, compare and prevent adverse
events across different health systems.
Finally, in 2017 ministers of health from OECD countries agreed that their health
systems would be benchmarked using a new wave of patient-reported indicators
of performance (30). More sophisticated health information systems survey patients
directly, to monitor and compare their views on the quality of care received and
monitor their health outcomes (93). This strategy is an important development that
will support a paradigm shift from measurement systems that are focused on health
care providers to truly people-centred systems in which measurement is focused on
experiences and outcomes viewed from the perspective of patients (94).
48
4.2.5 Financing mechanisms that enable and
encourage quality care
The way funds are collected, pooled and used to pay for health care
services can, unsurprisingly, have large effects on the quality and outcomes
of care. First, there is solid evidence that funds should be collected and pooled
in advance of needing care, through mandatory insurance schemes (with
subsidized contributions for those unable to afford insurance). The alternative –
paying out of pocket at the moment of need – means that people go without care
when they need it and end up sicker as a result, or catastrophically impoverished (65).
How funding then flows from insurance agencies to the front line, to purchase or
reimburse services, is equally critical. There are several possible mechanisms, such as
fee for service, capitation, or annual block budgets (transferred to hospitals or clinics,
based on previous or predicted spending). Each has strengths and weaknesses, in
the extent to which it rewards activity over outcomes, or incentivizes preventive over
reactive care. There are no “silver bullets”, and in practice a blend of mechanisms
is usually employed. What is important, from the perspective of quality of care, is
that the blend is intelligently designed, aligns as closely as possible with local
needs, incentivizes coordination of care for individuals with complex needs, invests
adequately in primary care and prevention, rewards quality care, and penalizes care
that does not meet sufficient standards. Accordingly, health systems are increasingly
designing mechanisms that pay for bundles or pathways of care, and experimenting
with quality-based payments.
One family of such innovations, applied in high- as well as in low-income settings,
is pay for performance (P4P), or results-based financing. Carefully designed, often
time-limited, programmes pay health care providers to deliver specific, high-priority
interventions. Nearly two thirds of OECD countries have at least one P4P scheme in
place, predominantly in primary care. Systematic reviews tentatively suggest a positive
impact of P4P and results-based financing programmes on quality in OECD countries
(93). Results for results-based financing in lower-income settings are mixed, with fairly
modest results so far for quality improvement, particularly for non-targeted conditions.
Overall, payment innovations can also be used to deliver sustained collateral benefits –
such as improved protocols of care, improved collaboration across providers, and
improved information systems – on health care needs, activities, outcomes and costs.
4.3 QUALITY OF CARE AS THE FOUNDATION OF PEOPLE-CENTRED

HEALTH CARE
As governments plan to deliver universal health coverage, there are three key design
principles that should be considered. First, services should be built in a way that meets
local health care needs. Although seemingly obvious, many health systems lack a
population–health focus. Instead, available health service networks are the product of
historical legacy, or are the result of political lobbying or of transient donor funding.
Local communities may be innocent bystanders in the design of care that is ultimately
destined for them. Many low- and middle-income countries have dealt with a high
burden of communicable disease and this has meant that their systems have needed
strong public health functions in areas such as surveillance, laboratories and routine
immunization. They may also have received substantial donor funds in the form of
programme grants to control or eliminate particular diseases. Increasingly, though, the
growing burden of noncommunicable disease in these same countries necessitates
services capable of supporting people over time with personalized, proactive care to
manage their condition, prevent complications and enhance quality of life (Box 4.4).
Chapter 4
Box 4.4 Case study: unmet needs for the care of chronic diseases
Hypertension, or high blood pressure, is one of the most prevalent and critical
risk factors for early death and disability globally. Untreated hypertension leads to
kidney disease, ischaemic heart disease and stroke (the latter are the two leading
causes of death worldwide). Hypertension affects an estimated one in three adults
over the age of 20 years worldwide, with the prevalence now higher in low-
and middle-income countries than in high-income countries (age-standardized
prevalence of 31.5% versus 28.5%, respectively). Of the approximately 1.5 billion
people with hypertension, less than half will be aware of their condition; only
36.9% will be on appropriate treatment; and as few as 13.8% will have their blood
pressure effectively controlled. Significant disparities in awareness and treatment
exist by country income level: in high- versus low- and middle-income countries,
rates of diagnosis and treatment are twice as high and 4 times the proportion of
patients have their blood pressure controlled.
Source: Mills et al. (96).
A recent study analysed 22 initiatives to strengthen primary health care in 10 counties

in China and at national and subnational levels in 12 countries. Eight tenets of high-
performing primary health care systems were derived: ensuring primary health care as
first point of contact for most health care needs; functioning multidisciplinary care teams;
vertical integration of services; horizontal integration of services; advanced information
and communication technology; integrated clinical pathways and functioning dual
referral systems; measurement standards and feedback; and certification (95).
The second key principle of design is to build high-quality primary care services (97).
First contacts with health care, and a person’s regular point of entry into the health
system, must be continuous and comprehensive (Box 4.5). No physical or mental
health issue should be excluded from the oversight and coordination functions of
primary care. If individuals and families in a geographically (or otherwise defined)
community are formally registered with a named primary care provider, this enables
creation of community health profiles, as well as surveillance of needs and delivery
of preventive care. Registration also creates a structure for proactive care amongst
people with chronic conditions. Primary care is also fundamental to health system
resilience, and is pivotal in surveillance of communicable diseases or other hazards,
and in the delivery of front-line care in the case of outbreaks.
Third, engagement with patients, families and communities needs to be designed into
health systems, rather than bolted on as an afterthought. A review of randomized
controlled studies of integrated care programmes for the frail elderly, for example,
showed that the most benefit was derived from those in which the elderly person was
directly involved in care planning (98, 99).
If patient groups are encouraged to engage in collective action, people benefit hugely
from the support of others with similar health problems. The WHO Patients for Patient
Safety programme illustrates this well. The programme has empowered a global
network of patient advocates that aims to foster collaborations between patients,
families, communities, health care providers and policy-makers to make health care
safer through the insights and experiences of patients themselves (100).
50
Box 4.5 Case study: primary care in Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, an innovative primary care sector forms a solid base for the rest of
the health care system. Community clinics, or integrated health care basic teams
(equipos básicos de atención integral de salud, EBAIS) are the functional units of
primary care delivery. Each EBAIS serves around 1000 households. Each consists
of at least one medical doctor, one nurse and one health care assistant. Other
personnel, such as social workers, dentists, laboratory technicians, pharmacists and
nutritionists, may also support the clinic.
To complement EBAIS, centres for integrated health care (centros de atención
integral en salud, CAIS) have recently been developed. They offer an extended
model of primary care, including maternity services, intermediate care beds (to
avoid hospital admission or expedite early discharge), minor surgery, rehabilitation,
specialty clinics (such as pain management), and diagnostics such as radiography.
A detailed primary care performance framework evaluates local health authorities
across 30 indicators in the domains of access, continuity, effectiveness, efficiency,
patient satisfaction and organizational competence. For each indicator, a national
target is set and dashboards of local results are published, allowing providers to
compare their performance against national, regional and local benchmarks.
National data show that 80% of primary care presentations are resolved at that
level, without referral to secondary care. Referral guidelines exist, and hospital
referrals are turned back if appropriate steps have not been completed in primary
care. Hospital doctors also train colleagues working in EBAIS to strengthen primary
care management.
Source: OECD (21).
More broadly, collaboration with nongovernmental organizations, grass-roots community

groups and patient representative organizations also offers huge potential gains. Civil
society organizations focused on health issues are increasingly well established in many
low- and middle-income countries (Box 4.6). These groups do far more than just offer
advice and support – they also help people assert their rights to high-quality care.
A review of literature by Laverack (101) illustrates the multiple avenues through which
community engagement strengthens health systems. These include strengthening social
networks, developing local skills such as leadership, resource mobilization, or simply
asking the question “Why?”
Box 4.6 Case study: using Citizen Voice and Action to empower
communities in Uganda
Empowering communities through training and education is an important step
in enabling them to engage with health care providers. The Citizen Voice and
Action project model (20), for example, allows citizens to learn about the number
of health workers, vaccines, equipment and materials that should be present
at their local health centre. Residents then work with health workers and local
government to measure the facility’s compliance with government standards.
…
Chapter 4
They can also use a community scorecard to rate the facility according to criteria
that they themselves generate, and convene meetings with civil society, government
and service providers where all stakeholders can review the evidence and commit
to an action plan to improve services.
The Citizen Voice and Action model was successfully implemented in Uganda
in 2004 in response to perceived weak health care delivery at the primary care
level. The main objective of the intervention was to strengthen the provider’s
accountability to citizen clients by introducing a process, using trained community-
based organizations as facilitators, which the communities could manage and
sustain on their own. One year after implementation, health facilities in treatment
villages (as compared to comparison villages) saw a 12-minute reduction in
average waiting time and a 13% reduction in absenteeism. Health facilities in
treatment villages also showed a 33% decrease in under 5 mortality; a 58%
increase in the use of skilled birth attendants; and a 19% increase in number of
patients seeking prenatal care. The improvements were maintained four years
after the project started.
4.4 THE VISION: HEALTH SYSTEMS COMMITTED

TO PEOPLE‑CENTRED CARE
The expectant mother with high blood pressure, or the elderly man with
diabetes, arthritis and hearing loss, both require a range of services
to be delivered effectively – not just within the formal health
system, but in the community to which they will return to
live and work. The young man with schizophrenia needs
carefully coordinated care to manage his mental health
problems, but also to deal with the array of chronic
physical health problems that reduce life expectancy
by up to 25 years in people with severe mental illness.
Complex health care requires systems able to deliver
an entire pathway of care (health promotion, disease
prevention, diagnosis, treatment, disease management,
rehabilitation and palliative care services) consistently,
effectively, safely and in ways that are valued by patients
and their families.
Effective governance of health systems comprises several tasks,
including maintaining strategic oversight of goals and priorities; generating the
information and analysis required to track whether goals are being met; designing
rules, policies and processes to steer the system in the desired direction; and creating
and nurturing collaborations within and beyond the health system.
Enshrining the right to health care, according to need, in national legislation is a valuable
step in making progress towards universal health coverage. Experience shows that de
jure commitments often fail to translate, de facto, into access to good-quality care.
Setting up a national agency responsible for quality monitoring and improvement is also
an important step. Ideally, it should be independent of health care insurers and providers,
with the regulatory powers to collect, analyse and publish quality and outcome data. Its
role can also encompass sharing lessons learned from high performers and supporting
poorly performing services in addressing performance gaps.
52
People-centred care means that health systems must ensure:
• continuity from illness prevention to palliation, between services (e.g. intensive
care and radiology) and between levels of care (primary to specialist), throughout
the life course;
• coordination across different care settings, in ways that meet the particular
needs of the individuals and their carers;
• comprehensiveness that broadens the portfolio of care – from health promotion
through to palliative care – that individuals and communities can use.
When health systems struggle to provide people-centred care it is often because

services still place too much emphasis on treating individual diseases, rather than
preventing illness or promoting better health and well-being. The system prioritizes
specialist care for its investment and concentration of resources. Primary care can be
designed so that it is the mediator between a community’s needs and the range of
provision in a health system. It can then fulfil the enhanced coordination role that
person-centred care requires (Figure 4.3). An important way of keeping people-
centred care on track, and ensuring the right balance of primary and secondary care
services, is to publish regular reports analysing performance of the health system as
a whole.
Figure 4.3 Primary care as a hub of coordination

Networking within the community served and with outside partners
SPECIALIZED CARE Community

mental health unit Emergency
TB control department
HOSPITAL
centre Consultant support
Maternity
Referral for Traffic accident
Diabetes multi-drug resistance
clinic
Placenta praevia
Referral Surgery
for complications
Hemia
Self-help
group Primary care team:
Diagnostic continuous, Training
CT Scan support support Training centre
comprehensive,
person-centred care Social
Pap services
Cytology smears Liaison
lab community
health worker
DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES Other

Other
Alcoholism
y
C o m m u n i t Gender violence
Waste disposal
inspection Mammography Alcoholics
Women’s shelter
Anonymous
Environmental Cancer screening
health lab centre NGOs
SPECIALIZED PREVENTION SERVICES
Source: World Health Organization (102).
Chapter 4
People-centred care is a critical entry point through which to improve quality. It involves
patients in decisions about their care, and asks their opinions about their outcomes
of care; it questions variations in patient outcomes across different providers; it drives
greater investment in electronic records that work across multiple settings; it assures
transparency and learning when things go wrong; and it fosters a myriad of other
actions to improve health care quality. As global health care quality expert Donald
Berwick has said: “Person-centredness is not just one of the dimensions of health care
quality, it is the doorway to all qualities” (16).
The WHO Framework on Integrated, People-centred Health Services, adopted with
overwhelming support by Member States at the World Health Assembly in May 2016,
sets forth a compelling vision in which “all people have equal access to quality health
services that are co-produced in a way that meets their life course needs”. It calls
for the coordination of services across the continuum of care and for a supportive
environment that helps caregivers practise with the skills and resources they need.
This framework proposes five interrelated strategic areas (Figure 4.4) for how health
services and systems can be reoriented to accomplish this vision (103).
Figure 4.4 Five strategies for people-centred services
4.5 CONCLUSION
Quality can be built into the foundations of health care systems, no matter how far
along the road a health system is to reaching universal health coverage. A quality-
oriented approach to health care workers, health care facilities, medicines, devices
and other technologies, information systems, and financing is vital at all stages of
development. Building up the foundations of quality health systems needs to be at
the forefront of thinking, planning and policy-making. But more action is urgently
required to create quality health systems. Health systems must exchange a top-down
hierarchy for pathways and networks based upon cooperation and collaboration, with
primary care as the bedrock and people at the centre. This transformation of relations
needs to be coupled with new mechanisms to hold governments and health system
leaders to account and build citizens’ trust. Box 4.7 outlines key actions that can be
taken to ensure that quality is built into the foundations of health care systems.
The following chapter provides greater detail about what types of interventions can
be brought together and implemented at macro, meso and micro levels to improve
quality of care.
54
Box 4.7 Key actions: building quality into the foundations
of health systems
To ensure that quality is built into the foundations of systems to achieve universal
health care coverage, governments, policy-makers, health system leaders, patients,
and clinicians should work together to:
1. Ensure a high-quality health care workforce, by:

• developing a national strategy to address gaps in numbers, distribution
and retention of health professionals, both in the short term and the
longer term;
• modernizing training curricula for health care workers and integrating
the principles of quality and quality improvement methods into training
curricula;
• encouraging programmes of continuous professional development and
evaluating their impact.
2. Ensure excellence across all health care facilities, by:

• ensuring service readiness and availability as a necessary but not sufficient
condition for quality of care;
• encouraging continuous and formative evaluations of facilities’ quality
of care;
• collecting and analysing richer data on variations in quality and outcomes
across facilities, turning insights into action to spread best practices and
support poor performers.
3. Ensure safe and effective use of medicines, devices and

other technologies, by:
• developing national policies on medicines and devices focusing on assured
quality, adequate supply and affordable prices, supported by standardized
health technology assessment;
• developing guidelines, checklists and surveillance systems to support
the correct use of medical technology, and monitor errors, accidents
and adverse reactions;
• adopting voluntary non-remunerated blood donation and introducing
external quality assessment of the processes for collecting, preparing
and administering blood products.
4. Ensure effective use of health information systems, by:

• building reliable births and death registration systems and, from this,
developing a national system of unique patient identifiers to support
quality monitoring across pathways of care;
• moving away from paper-based records to a unique electronic health
record that can be used across multiple health care settings;
• developing national legislation that protects individual privacy whilst
enabling the use of personal health data for research and quality
improvement;
…
Chapter 4
• supporting clinicians, managers and policy-makers in collecting and

analysing service data for quality improvement, and communicating
effectively with the public about how these data are used;
• encouraging transparency when things go wrong, by building a learning
culture that focuses on understanding root causes rather than assigning
individual blame;
• at global level, agreeing on standards to enhance data quality and
comparability, particularly standardized terminology to classify, analyse
and prevent adverse events;
• including measurement of patient outcomes and experiences as a
standard element in facilities’ quality assessment.
5. Develop financing mechanisms that support continuous quality

improvement, by:
• reducing reliance on out-of-pocket funding, and shifting to prepaid
and pooled funds for the majority of health system financing through
mandatory insurance schemes, with subsidies for those unable to afford
contribution;
• linking financing for health care providers to local health care needs,
incentivizing coordination of care for individuals with complex needs, and
investing adequately in primary care;
• fully exploiting the potential of payment schemes to deliver sustained
collateral benefits such as improved protocols of care, improved
collaboration across providers, and improved information systems on
health care needs, activities, costs and outcomes.
56
Chapter 5 Understanding levers
to improve quality
Chapter 5
Understanding levers to improve quality
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Quality is a complex and multifaceted concept. Its pursuit requires the design and
simultaneous deployment of combinations of discrete interventions. Understanding
this interdependence is critical in designing future health systems. For example,
establishing standards for care is part of quality improvement, but, for the standards
to be reliably implemented, additional actions are needed, such as training and
supervision, monitoring for compliance and feedback to health care providers. The
process of standard setting alone, without these other supporting and interdependent
actions, is of limited value (104, 105).
This chapter describes a range of levers to improve the quality of health services and
discusses the rationale for developing national quality-related policies and strategies.
Common goals addressing quality through a wide array of interventions, across all
levels of the health care system – from national-level policy and regulation to the
direct provision of individual patient care – are examined. The interdependence of
these diverse levers for change and the avoidance of a single-track approach are
explained. The levers should also be customized within countries as health-related
decisions may be made at the subnational and community levels, and should also be
sensitive to unique contextual factors.
5.2 DRIVING IMPROVEMENT THROUGH NATIONAL QUALITY

POLICY AND STRATEGY
The development, refinement and execution of a national quality policy and strategy
are a growing priority as countries strive to systematically improve health system
performance. A carefully designed national quality policy and strategy – applying an
implementation-informed approach – is likely to be one of the pivotal considerations
of countries as they work to achieve enhanced access to health services that yield the
best achievable outcomes.
But why are countries focused on driving quality through national efforts? Each
country has its own culture, population needs, and a historical legacy shaping its
health care system. Most countries, though, share a set of goals and an awareness
of the strategic context for health care. There are six main areas of common ground:
• belief that high-quality, safe, people-centred health care is a public good that
should be secured for all citizens;
• acceptance that better access to care without attention to its quality will not
lead to desired population health outcomes;
• acknowledgement that strategies to improve the efficiency of health
systems must deliver in an increasingly constrained financial situation;
• need to align the performance of public and private health care delivery in
fragmented and mixed health markets;
• awareness that quality health care is vital to resilience in the political context
of national and global health security;
• realization that good governance means satisfying the public demand for greater
transparency about standards of care, treatment choices, performance and
variable outcomes.
Countries face the challenge of developing or refining their quality-related policies

and strategies through national consensus. They must also recognize that driving
change towards a future vision of better performance will almost always be limited by
the practical realities of how and where health care is currently provided.
58
National policies on health care quality are developed through various governmental
structures. In some countries, this involves enabling legislation to establish new
administrative and governance structures or to create new forms of mandatory action
(for example, physician registration and licensing) or to formulate new regulatory
mechanisms (for example, inspection and accreditation). This may trigger the need for
an explicit national quality policy document. In other situations, implementation of a
national quality policy or strategy may simply be part of the routine five-year health
sector plan or an internal ministry of health document. There is no single right way to
do this, but most approaches involve one or more of the following processes:
• quality policy and implementation strategy as part of the formal long-term health
sector national plan;
• a quality policy document developed as a stand-alone national document, usually
within a multistakeholder process, led or supported by the ministry of health;
• anational quality implementation strategy – with a detailed action agenda –
which also includes a section on essential policy areas;
• enabling legislation and regulatory statutes to support the policy and strategy.
Boxes 5.1 and 5.2 provide country case studies on the implementation of national
quality policy and strategy in the health sectors of Ethiopia and Sudan.
Box 5.1 Case study: Ethiopia –

National Health Care Quality Strategy 2016–2020
Ethiopia is the second most populous country in Africa, with a population of

around 100 million. Since 1995, the country’s health sector has undergone
significant reform through implementation of a Health Care Financing Strategy.
The Health Sector Transformation Plan identifies four transformation priority
agendas: ensuring the delivery of quality health services in equitable fashion;
focusing on district-level transformation; strengthening health information
systems; and creating a compassionate, respectful and caring health workforce.
The Ethiopian National Health Care Quality Strategy was launched in March 2016.
In order to operationalize the strategy, the Health Services Quality Directorate has
developed a quality improvement tool for clinical audit of selected high-priority
health care services in hospitals. Nationwide training on quality of care and audit
methods has been conducted with selected health care cadres from all hospitals.
The quality data system now allows integration of key performance indicators
with the existing health management information system (106).
A number of priorities are pivotal to implementation of the strategy, including
strengthening the National Quality Steering Committee chaired by the State
Minister; supporting the formation of quality units in regional health bureaus
and health facilities; capacity-building through training of cadres and dedicated
mentorship; integration of quality improvement in the pre school health curriculum;
strengthening monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; and creating demand
for quality within the community, with a focus on respectful care. In order to
operationalize the strategy, the Health Services Quality Directorate has developed
a quality improvement tool for clinical audit of selected high-priority health care
services in hospitals.
Chapter 5
Box 5.2 Case study: Sudan –

National Health Care Quality Policy and Strategy
Sudan has a decentralized health system, with the federal government responsible
for national health policy-making, strategy and coordination; state governments
responsible for planning and implementation at the state level; and local entities
concerned with service delivery on the ground. The main administrative body is
the multisectoral National Health Sector Coordination Council.
Awareness of quality of care among the public and health care professionals is
sporadic. While research into quality exists there is no adequate mechanism for
interorganizational dissemination of results, so decision-making is not always
informed by relevant data and evidence. However, measures are being undertaken
to rectify these shortcomings. In line with the third National Health Sector Strategic
Plan, a National Health Care Quality Policy and Strategy was formulated in 2017,
to be implemented during 2017–2020. The policy addresses four main priority
areas: strengthening governance and accountability, compliance with national
quality standards, promotion of a people-centred approach, and reduction of
avoidable harm to patients. Particular focus has been given to the health workforce
through accredited training, career pathways, staffing norms, human resources for
health management systems, and performance appraisal and auditing systems to
help build capacity. Establishment of a formal partnership with patients and the
community is high on the agenda of the National Quality Policy and Strategy.
Next steps include strengthening coordination mechanisms for the National
Health System; devising a retention scheme for human resources; strengthening
the health management information system; institutionalizing quality at all levels;
improving patient safety and infection control at the state level; and strengthening
management and implementation capacity at all levels.
At its most effective, a quality strategy acts as a bridge between where a health system
currently stands and the level of quality a country aims to attain. It can accelerate the
achievement of health goals and priorities, using quality management principles that
incorporate planning, control and improvement processes (107). Though the form and
content of the national policy and strategy of each country will vary, the following
eight components are likely to receive universal consideration:
• National health goals and priorities. These will help to direct resources to
meet the most pressing demands of the population. The quality agenda is then
aligned to them.
• Definition of quality. The definition of quality used must be acceptable in the
local context within the country and should underpin the national approach. Use
of local language and shared understanding are essential.
• Stakeholder mapping and engagement. Quality is an aggregate of the
individual components of the whole health system. Including key stakeholders in
the development of policy and strategy allows a comprehensive range of factors
that promote good-quality health services to be addressed.
• Situational analysis: state of quality. The current state of quality in any health
system encompasses relevant priorities and problems; related programmes and
policies; organizational capabilities and capacity; leadership and governance;
and related resources. Assessment of the current state of quality defines key gaps
requiring attention and areas of health care services that can be strengthened.
60
• Improvement methods and interventions. Judicious selection of interdependent
interventions implemented across all levels of the health care system will improve
health outcomes. This task is complicated by limited resources, evidence of impact,
feasibility and acceptability.
• Governance and organizational structure for quality. Governance, leadership
and technical capacity are all necessary factors for improving quality. They need
to be clearly articulated. In a growing number of countries, a national-level unit,
usually in the ministry of health, has been created and coexists with other national
quality bodies.
• Health management information systems and data systems. Improving
quality relies on clear and accurate performance data. An information system to
support nationally driven quality efforts is necessary for measurement, performance
feedback and reporting.
• Quality measures. A core set of quality indicators is critically important for judging
whether activities are producing higher quality of care leading to significant change
in health outcomes; for providing feedback to providers and facility management;
for promoting transparency to the public; and for comparative benchmarking to
identify best practices for learning.
Box 5.3 presents a case study on the implementation of national quality strategy
through a coordinated Quality Management Framework in Mexico.
Box 5.3 Case study: Mexico – National Strategy for Quality

Consolidation in Health Care Facilities and Services
Mexico, with around 120 million inhabitants, has a mixed health care system
with both public and private providers. Despite major reforms, including the
introduction of a free health coverage system in 2003, demographic and
epidemiological transitions – such as an ageing population and an increase in
the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases – continue to place tremendous
pressures upon the health care system.
A comprehensive systemwide quality improvement strategy was launched in
Mexico in January 2001. The main objectives were to promote quality of care as
a core value in the culture of health care organizations, both public and private,
and to improve the quality of services across the health care system. In 2012 the
National Strategy for Quality Consolidation in Health Care Facilities and Services
was established, to be implemented through the General Directorate of Quality
and Education in Health Care of the Ministry of Health. The strategy aimed to
achieve quality improvement in the following areas: patient safety, innovation
and continuous improvement, risk management, accreditation of health care
facilities, health regulation, and health education.
Implementation of the strategy is supported by a Quality Management Framework
that provides the administrative structure for quality improvement at all levels.
The framework targets five value outcomes: population health, effective access,
reliable and safe organizations, satisfactory experience of the population with
health care, and reasonable costs. Citizen participation is promoted, and a
monitoring system with indicators has been put in place. Incentives include a
national quality award, and financial incentives to networks of units for the
development of specific joint quality improvement projects.
Source: Ministry of Health (108), Sarabia-González et al. (109), Ruelas et al. (110).
Chapter 5
5.3 QUALITY INTERVENTIONS

Quality interventions can have a significant impact on
specific health services delivered and on the health system
at large. Understanding the types of commonly deployed
interventions, and knowledge of the evidence regarding
their use and effectiveness, can allow for more informed
choices about which interventions to select in countries. The
nature of health care challenges in different health systems across
the world is actually quite similar, despite the different contexts of
population health needs, financing and workforce capacity. Whilst priorities may
differ – communicable versus noncommunicable disease, care needs of later life versus
treatment of mothers and children – the same quality goals are pursued everywhere:
• reduce harm to patients
• improve clinical effectiveness of the health services delivered
• engage and empower patients, families and communities
• build systemic capacity for ongoing quality improvement activities
• strengthen governance and accountability.
But where does that leave action? Agreeing upon a list of goals is easier than
identifying strategies to achieve them. In this context, seven categories of action stand
out. They are routinely considered by quality stakeholders – providers, managers,
policy-makers – when trying to improve the performance of the health care system.
They are considered in the following subsections.
5.3.1 Changing clinical practice at the front line

The gap between what is known to be effective care (“know”) and what is routinely
performed by providers (“do”) has been well documented around the world. Closing
this “know–do” gap requires multimodal changes in clinical practice at every level of
a health system, from the individual encounter between the patient and the health
care worker to the redesign of health care delivery. The skills, knowledge and attitudes
of health care workers are fundamental. Measures to support health care providers
to achieve the most effective care include clinical decision support systems ranging
from written protocols to electronically supported aids. Reducing harm to patients is
a key objective – It is estimated that of every 100 hospitalized patients at any given
time, 7 in developed and 10 in developing countries will acquire at least one health
care-associated infection (111). Away from the individual patient and provider, new
models of care are being developed and implemented to address multiple dimensions
of quality. The models define current best practice for the delivery of health care
generically and also as related to special populations (for example, people with
chronic disease or mental health conditions) or those with common characteristics
(for example, children or the elderly). New models of care are often community based,
extending well beyond the walls of hospitals and integrating the contributions of
primary, specialized and social care organizations (104).
5.3.2 Setting standards

Setting standards, with evidence-based protocols, can establish consistency in
delivery of high-quality care across diverse health systems globally. Though often led
by government entities, standard setting is an area of quality improvement where
professional bodies should play a major role, either working independently or in
partnership with governments. Some clinical standards focus on specific population
62
groups, others on disease conditions or treatment protocols. For example, global
clinical standards of care have been developed to improve maternal and newborn care
in facilities (112). Embedding clinical policy and standards-based care is often achieved
through patient care protocols and clinical pathways. Whilst clinical standards are often
an early step in national quality strategies, developing standards without a holistic
quality approach may not yield the expected results and progress.
5.3.3 Engaging and empowering patients, families

and communities
Health systems need to go further than health literacy programmes to make full use
of the potential of people-centredness as an entry point to higher-quality care. There
is strong evidence, across all country contexts, that interventions that seek to engage
and empower patients, caregivers and families can promote better care, including
healthier behaviours, enhanced patient experience, more effective utilization of
health services, reduced costs and improved outcomes (100). For example, engaging
women’s groups in Nepal to identify the major maternal and newborn problems
and strategies for improvement resulted in 30% fewer newborn deaths and an
80% reduction in maternal mortality (113). Giving patients information, advice and
support can help them manage their health and co-develop treatment and health
maintenance plans. Systematic, sustained community engagement mechanisms can
also support programmes to improve quality of care. The need to secure or build trust
in communities is also a priority. Without it there will be a fundamental barrier in
willingness to access health care even when it is needed.
5.3.4 Information and education for health workers, managers

and policy-makers
To be effective, information systems for quality improvement must meet the needs of
caregivers, facility managers, health system leaders, policy-makers and regulators. This
requires targeted information and educational methods for each respective audience.
Health workers need comparative information about their own performance, especially
benchmarked against best practices. Leaders, managers, policy-makers, regulators
and funders also need comparative information. The format and focus will vary
according to the area of quality being reviewed, whether it is a service (for example
maternity care), a disease condition (for example the care of people with diabetes),
a group within the population (for example older people), or an intervention (for
example measles vaccination uptake). One of the commitments needed from leaders
is to ensure that a proper level of investment in information systems is maintained.
However, advances in accessibility and utility of information do not need to depend on
high-technology solutions; for example, clinical decision support may be in the form of
computer prompts or as simple as paper forms with boxes to tick the basic processes
related to effective child care.
5.3.5 Use of continuous quality improvement programmes

and methods
Quality improvement is not a static concept, but rather a continually emerging,
dynamic system property. Many different methods are used to continuously assure and
improve quality of health care, including broad clinical governance mechanisms; peer
review and clinical audit; individual feedback; supervision and training; clinical decision
support tools based on guidelines; and multidisciplinary learning collaboratives.
A basic tenet underlying continuous quality improvement is activated learning
mechanisms using iterative cycles of change. Further, an avoidance of “blaming and
shaming” is central in avoiding the risk of promoting fear and resistance rather than
Chapter 5
enthusiastic engagement in a shared pursuit of improved performance. There is no

single effective method. Multiple interventions must be used in combination and with
an understanding of the specific context. The role of institutional culture becomes a
critical consideration in deciding the specific blend of quality improvement methods
based on the capacity and capabilities that exist.
5.3.6 Establishing performance-based incentives

(financial and non-financial)
Incentives can be either financial, such as payment, or non-financial, such as
recognition and awards. Performance-based financing is a broad term for the payment
of health providers based on some set of performance measures and is increasingly
used as a quality lever. Models include value-based purchasing; readmission penalties;
withholding payment for medical errors; and performance programmes focused on
strengthening primary care. The amount contingent on performance is a subcomponent
of the full payment, based on a range of financing modalities. Evidence remains mixed
about the ability of pay-for-performance programmes to change health outcomes by
themselves. However, incentives – both financial and increasingly recognized non-
financial approaches – can serve an important motivating and sustaining function
when used as part of a robust quality improvement programme. At the same time,
attention is required in order to avoid disincentives for quality (such as payment
systems that encourage excess medicine use).
5.3.7 Legislation and regulation

Governments use both legislation and regulation to achieve national health objectives.
Legislation directed at improving quality of health services may address a wide range
of issues, such as coverage and benefits; establishment of new (or empowerment of
current) national bodies; payment reform; licensing of facilities and individual providers;
and public performance reporting. Regulation is the range of factors outside clinical
practice or the management of health care that influences behaviour in delivering
or using health services (114). Regulation usually targets the activities of institutional
and individual providers; health insurance organizations; pharmaceutical and device
manufacturers; and consumers or patients. Various regulatory interventions often fail
to meet their intended objectives, in part because responsible agencies lack capacity
for enforcement. Regulation of private sector activity is increasingly important, given
the large proportion of total services delivered.
Box 5.4 provides a case study illustrating the use of legislation and regulation to support
health care quality goals in Ontario, Canada.
Box 5.4 Case study: Ontario, Canada –

Excellent Care for All Act and Strategy
With its large land mass and heterogeneous population of over 13.5 million,
including First Nations, provision of equal access to high-quality care is challenging
in Ontario. As with all Canadian provinces, Ontario has a single payer health
system; about two thirds of health care expenditure is publicly funded, while one
third is paid directly by patients or private insurance plans.
Various studies have found that the relationship between quality and funding
is generally weak in Ontario, and a major goal of current health system reforms
is to improve that linkage. The Excellent Care for All Act became law in 2010,
with the Excellent Care for All Strategy forming the vehicle for implementation.
…
64
The act mandates quality committees of the board in health sector organizations,
and requires surveys of satisfaction for patients, families and employees. In
addition, health care organizations must develop and publicly post a patient
declaration of values and a quality improvement plan. The Excellent Care for All
Act also created an expanded provincial quality agency, Health Quality Ontario,
with a mandate to undertake health system performance monitoring and
public reporting, support quality improvement, and promote the provision of
best-quality health care. At the organizational level, regulations govern quality
assurance and safety in hospitals, nursing homes, laboratories, and other health
care settings, and health regulatory colleges have been established to ensure that
health professionals provide services in a safe, responsible and ethical manner.
While 65% of Ontarians rate their health status as excellent or very good, this
average masks significant geographical and population variations; for example, the
poorest quintile is twice as likely to report having multiple chronic conditions than
the richest quintile. In response, a continued focus on leadership, accountability,
and alignment of incentives and goals for improvement will continue to be
cornerstones of Ontario’s strategy for a higher-quality health care system.
Source: ICES (115), Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (116).
5.4 CONSIDERATION AND SELECTION OF QUALITY INTERVENTIONS

While the seven categories of action provide a broad map of the performance
improvement terrain, there is a further need to specify key quality interventions.
Selecting the “right” intervention is seldom possible. No single intervention will satisfy
all needs. Even interventions that are non-controversial, such as protocols for hand
hygiene, are ineffective if not implemented by considering organizational culture and
staff attitudes and motivation. Linkage with national goals – designed to withstand
political changes – is central to long-term sustainability.
Any ambition to improve quality will require a multimodal approach, using a
combination of interventions. Some approaches, like accreditation of facilities, may
not have a direct impact on health outcomes but can be important in building public
trust and in promoting a culture of quality within the health care system. Programmes
that focus only on provider behaviour fail to recognize that the wider environment of
health care is pivotal in facilitating or hindering best practice. For example, appropriate
prescribing of antibiotics often depends on a physician whose behaviour can be
influenced by practice guidelines, performance feedback, peer review, training and
supervision, financial incentives, availability of a sufficient variety of antibiotics and
patient expectation. The complexity of change becomes apparent.
The illustrative interventions in Table 5.1 have been identified for the following
attributes: relevant in a wide variety of countries globally; commonly considered as
options; having some evidence to guide selection and use; and implementable at
multiple levels, from small primary care clinics to the level of a national programme.
The context within which these interventions are applied is pivotal in maintaining the
credibility of quality improvement endeavours. For example, developing a multimodal
quality intervention strategy for a health facility without adequate water supply
provides an immediate reality check for quality enthusiasts – data on water, sanitation
and hygiene from health facilities across the world provide a clear context for action
on the structures required for quality.
Chapter 5
The list presented is not exhaustive; other interventions could be included. This set of
interventions has been selected for their potential impact on quality by reducing harm,
improving front-line delivery of health care services, and building systemwide capacity
for quality improvement. The illustrative interventions are not ranked by effectiveness but
point to some of the options and possibilities available to health system leaders, managers,
practitioners or policy-makers intent on advancing quality of care. The interventions are
presented as simply as possible, highlighting the salient issues. However, none is simple
to implement. The multiple interventions grouped under system environment touch on
a number of the seven categories mentioned above.
Table 5.1 Illustrative quality interventions
Category Interventions
System • Registration and licensing of doctors and other health professionals, as well as
environment health organizations, is often considered a key determinant and foundation of a well
performing health system.
• External evaluation and accreditation is the public recognition, by an external
body (public sector, non-profit or for-profit), of an organization’s level of performance
across a core set of prespecified standards.
• Clinical governance is a concept used to improve management, accountability
and the provision of quality health care. It incorporates clinical audit; clinical risk
management; patient or service user involvement; professional education and
development; clinical effectiveness research and development; use of information
systems; and institutional clinical governance committees.
• Public reporting and comparative benchmarking is a strategy often used to
increase transparency and accountability on issues of quality and cost in the health
care system by providing consumers, payers, health care organizations and providers
with comparative information on performance.
• Performance-based financing and contracting is a broad term for the payment of
health providers based on some set of performance measures and is increasingly used
as a quality lever. The amount contingent on performance is often a subcomponent
of the full payment, which may be based on a range of financing modalities.
• Training and supervision of the workforce are among the most common
interventions to improve the quality of health care in low- and middle-income
countries.
• Medicines regulation to ensure quality-assured, safe and effective medicines,
vaccines and medical devices is fundamental to a functioning health system.
Regulation, including post-marketing surveillance, is needed to eliminate substandard
and falsified medicines based on international norms and standards.
Reducing harm • Inspection of institutions for minimum safety standards can be used as a
mechanism to ensure there is a baseline capacity and resources to maintain a safe
clinical environment.
• Safety protocols, such as those for hand hygiene, address many avoidable risks that
threaten the well-being of patients and cause suffering and harm.
• Safety checklists, such as the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Trauma Care
Checklist, can have a positive impact on reducing both clinical complications and
mortality.
• Adverse event reporting documents an unwanted medical occurrence in a patient
resulting from specific health services or during patient medical encounters in a
medical care setting and should be linked to a learning system.
…
66
Category Interventions
Improvement • Clinical decision support tools provide knowledge and patient-specific information
in clinical care (automated or paper based) at appropriate times to enhance front-line health care
delivery.
• Clinical standards, pathways and protocols are tools used to guide evidence-
based health care that have been implemented internationally for decades. Clinical
pathways are increasingly used to improve care for diverse high-volume conditions.
• Clinical audit and feedback is a strategy to improve patient care through tracking
adherence to explicit standards and guidelines coupled with provision of actionable
feedback on clinical practice.
• Morbidity and mortality reviews provide a collaborative learning mechanism
and transparent review process for clinicians to examine their practice and identify
areas of improvement, such as patient outcomes and adverse events, without fear
of blame.
• Collaborative and team-based improvement cycles are a formalized method for
hospitals or clinics to work together on improvement around a focused topic area
over a fixed period of time with shared learning mechanisms.
Patient, family • Formalized community engagement and empowerment refers to the active
and community and intentional contribution of community members to the health of a community’s
engagement and population and the performance of the health delivery system, and can function as
empowerment an additional accountability mechanism.
• Health literacy is the capacity to obtain and understand basic health information
required to make appropriate health decisions on the part of patients, families and
wider communities consistently, and is intimately linked with quality of care.
• Shared decision-making is often employed to more appropriately tailor care to
patient needs and preferences, with the goal of improving patient adherence and
minimizing unnecessary future care.
• Peer support and expert patient groups link people living with similar clinical
conditions in order to share knowledge and experiences. It creates the emotional,
social and practical support for improving clinical care.
• Patient experience of care has received significant attention as the basis of
designing improvements in clinical care. Patient-reported measures are important
unto themselves; patients who have better experience are more engaged with their
care, which may contribute to better outcomes.
• Patient self-management tools are technologies and techniques used by patients
and families to manage health issues outside formal medical institutions and are
increasingly viewed as a means to improve clinical care.
5.5 CONCLUSION
Improving health system performance requires choices and judgements during the
promulgation of policy, prioritization of national quality goals, engagement of key
stakeholders and selection of quality-related interventions. The infrastructure, context,
culture and traditions of health care in a country and locality are central in deciding
which levers to apply.
A successful national quality strategy is multifaceted and uses many interventions in
concert (Table 5.2), from those that put the patient at the centre of the care process,
to those that support health workers to set standards and work effectively in teams.
Leaders, managers and policy-makers play a critical role in supporting and enabling
environments in which standard setting, performance-based incentives, regulation
and other interventions can flourish.
Chapter 5
Table 5.2 Quality-related interventions: engaging key actors
Actors Roles
Government • Definition of national priorities and quality goals
• Provision of essential quality infrastructure, e.g. information
technology, utilities
• Improvement of regulation
• Reporting data for transparency and motivation
• Inspection and licensing of health care providers
Health care • Clinical governance
facilities
• Establishing care protocols and clinical pathways
• Clinical decision support
• Use of safety protocols
• Inter-institutional learning mechanisms
Clinical • Clinical standards and patient pathways
providers
• Monitoring adherence to standards of care
• Peer review and clinical audit
• Shared decision-making
Patients and • Patient, family and community engagement
public
• Patient education and self-management
• Participation in governance
• Patient feedback on experience of care
One of the biggest obstacles to health care improvement is a reluctance to acknowledge

the problems that exist (117–119). Another is the difficulty of selecting effective
interventions and competently implementing them. The importance of leadership is
something of a mantra in the field of health care quality improvement, but without
it there is no way to inspire belief that improvement is possible to catalyse collective
action. Another key driver of success is proof that the intervention is working. It is here
that data collection and feedback are indispensable. However, local teams may lack
experience in collecting and interpreting data. They may struggle with data collection
systems that are poorly designed for monitoring quality (120). Excessively burdensome
measures may be seen as a waste of time, while poorly chosen measures can provoke
gaming and perverse incentives. Getting the monitoring aspect right from the start is
vital, and this means integrating measurement systems into improvement and making
sure that they are adequately resourced (121, 122).
Developing national quality policy and strategies is a priority if improvement is to be
an integral part of the way that the health care system operates. Nationally driven
efforts are required to develop and implement a coherent approach to quality that
uses multiple levers to secure the positive change being called for by populations
across the world.
68
Box 5.5 outlines key actions that can be taken to ensure that levers to improve quality
are fully utilized.
Box 5.5 Key actions: understanding levers to improve quality

To ensure that multiple levers are used to improve quality in health care,
governments, policy-makers, health system leaders, patients and clinicians
should work together to:
1. Develop, refine and execute a national quality policy and strategy, by:
• adopting a definition of quality that is applicable in the local context;
• conducting a situational analysis of the current state of quality;
• involving the range of key stakeholders in its formulation;
• identifying (or creating) organizational structures that can provide
governance, leadership and technical capacity in quality;
• ensuring that quality is integrated across ministry of health functions.
2. Adopt and promote universal quality goals, by:
• setting realistic and measurable targets to reduce harm and improve care;
• working with professional bodies to establish areas of care to improve
clinical effectiveness;
• engaging and empowering patients, families and communities;
• building systemic capacity for ongoing quality improvement activities;
• establishing and activating learning systems for continuous improvement.
3. Design a quality strategy that includes a set of quality interventions, by:
• examining carefully the evidence-based quality improvement interventions
in relation to the systems environment, reducing harm, improvement
in clinical care, and patient, family and community engagement and
empowerment.
4. Monitor and report quality of care results for continuous improvement

efforts
My Quality
Dr M. R. Rajagopal, palliative care specialist
Trivandrum, India
Today’s hospitals are no place for the dying. Both culturally

and clinically they are mostly unsuited to provide end-of-
life care, according to Dr M. R. Rajagopal, the “father”
of palliative care in India.
The former consultant anaesthetist has spent over
20 years developing care for the dying in the tiny green
and fertile state of Kerala in the south-west of the country.
Today, with 3% of India’s population, Kerala has two thirds of
the country’s palliative care services.
His interest developed when he was working as an anaesthetist at
Calicut Medical College in northern Kerala in the early 1990s. He recognized early
on that tackling pain and supporting the dying could not be achieved by medical staff
alone. The need was too great. It would depend on harnessing the commitment of
volunteers.
“Pain is just the visible part of the iceberg of suffering. What is ignored is the part
below the surface – feelings of hopelessness and despair, worries about children,
about money. That is what palliative care is about.”
The movement grew and today he estimates there are 300 voluntary groups across
the state (there are no official figures), providing care to patients in their own homes,
identifying those in need and helping direct limited medical resources to where they
can do most good. The “Kerala model” now attracts attention from around the world.
After moving to Trivandrum in the south, in 2006 he founded Pallium India, which
supports 11 voluntary groups and five mobile medical teams providing palliative
care in the area, as well as campaigning to improve palliative care throughout India.
Now aged 69, he still visits patients at home and teaches younger colleagues how to
approach them.
“If I wear a tie, hold myself with muscular rigidity, and talk only about pain, I will not
discover much. With a different, gentler approach, placing a hand on the patient’s
arm, they will talk about deeper problems.”
He warns about the importance of language. “You can do harm with the wrong dose
of a medicine – and equally with a wrong word.”
70
As diagnosis and treatment have become increasingly dependent on technology,
something has been lost, he says. The growth of the commercial health care industry,
driven by profit, has compounded the sense of alienation. The result is that the disease
has become more important than the person who has it. Most doctors believe they have
a duty to prolong life, rather than ease death. Cure has come to matter more than care.
“The patient has become a bit of a stranger amidst the machines. The health care
system seems to have forgotten that health is not just the absence of disease but the
presence of physical, mental and social well-being.”
He argues that every hospital must integrate palliative care with its disease-focused
work. Most people, given the choice and the appropriate care, would choose to die
at home, surrounded by their loved ones. But some feel more secure in a hospital
environment, with their familiar doctor close at hand. It should be a personal choice,
he says.
Having access to pain relief is vital to that choice but morphine is not easy to obtain.
Figures show India uses 320 kilograms of morphine a year, just 1% of the amount
required to meet the need.
It is not the cost that restricts access, but the law. Morphine has been highly restricted
in India since 1985 because of fears about drug abuse. As a result, two generations
of doctors have grown up unfamiliar with it, condemning millions of terminally ill
patients to an unnecessarily painful death.
Here, too, Kerala has led the way. Since 1995, palliative care centres
in Kerala have been permitted to administer morphine orally.
Dr Raj’s institution is now a WHO Collaborating Centre for
Training and Policy on Access to Pain Relief and plays host to
a stream of international visitors.
“Health care should be a partnership between the doctor,
the patient and the family. Doctors should not work
alone but with nurses and counsellors, volunteers from
the community and social workers. My duty is to build a
relationship with my patients and their families and care for
them as human beings. Life is not just existence – there is
more to it than that.”
Image on previous page: © LPETTET / iStock
Chapter 6 The quality
call to action
Chapter 6
The quality call to action
6.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, QUALITY AND

THE WAY FORWARD
The health-related SDGs cannot be achieved through reliance on disease-specific
achievements or financial reforms alone. It requires a strong commitment to creating
people-centred, high-quality health services. Achieving universal health coverage built
on a firm foundation of safe, high-quality care, together with all that is necessary to
sustain it, is the imperative facing policy-makers today.
Most past efforts at quality improvement have relied on project-based methodologies.
They have shown little promise for scale-up and sustainability. More focus is needed
on the foundations of high-quality health services across the care continuum. Offering
high-quality health services also means linking financial reforms and reorientation of
the delivery model to goals on quality of care. Finally, building on strong foundations,
health systems offering sustainable improvements in quality must use national quality
policy and strategy tools to create an environment where local, regional and national
champions can extend and expand what is working to improve services. In such an
environment, governments and providers will make locally appropriate choices on
which quality improvement interventions could have the greatest impact on improving
the system environment, on reducing harm, on improving clinical care and on engaging
and empowering patients, families and communities.
Advancing quality improvement, universal health coverage and people-centred
approaches within the complexity of health systems requires systems thinking – a
deliberate and comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of health systems in
order to make them change for the better. By decoding the complexity of the health
system, systems thinking helps foster systemwide implementation and evaluation of
those interventions that are needed to support the achievement of health goals –
equitably, sustainably and effectively.
6.2 CALL TO ACTION

This document, from the perspective of three global institutions concerned with health –
OECD, the World Bank and WHO – proposes a way forward for health policy-makers
seeking to achieve the goal of access to high-quality, people-centred health services
for all. In this chapter, a series of high-level actions are called for from each of the
key constituencies that needs to work together with a sense of urgency to enable the
promise of the SDGs for better, safer health care to be realized (Box 6.1).
While no single actor will be able to effect all these changes, an integrated approach
whereby different actors work together to achieve their part of the quality call to
action will have a demonstrable effect on the quality of health services around the
world.
74
Box 6.1 High-level actions by key constituencies for quality
in health care
All governments should:

• have a national quality policy and strategy;
• demonstrate accountability for delivering a safe high-quality service;
• ensure that reforms driven by the goal of universal health coverage build
quality into the foundation of their care systems;
• ensure that health systems have an infrastructure of information and
information technology capable of measuring and reporting the quality
of care;
• close the gap between actual and achievable performance in quality;
• strengthen the partnerships between health providers and health users
that drive quality in care;
• establish and sustain a health professional workforce with the capacity
and capability to meet the demands and needs of the population for
high‑quality care;
• purchase, fund and commission based on the principle of value;
• finance quality improvement research.
All health systems should:
• implement evidence-based interventions that demonstrate improvement;
• benchmark against similar systems that are delivering best performance;
• ensure that all people with chronic disease are enabled to minimize its
impact on the quality of their lives;
• promote the culture systems and practices that will reduce harm to patients;
• build resilience to enable prevention, detection and response to health
security threats through focused attention on quality;
• put in place the infrastructure for learning;
• provide technical assistance and knowledge management for
improvement.
All citizens and patients should:

• be empowered to actively engage in care to optimize their health status;
• play a leading role in the design of new models of care to meet the needs
of the local community;
• be informed that it is their right to have access to care that meets
achievable modern standards of quality;
• receive support, information and skills to manage their own long-term
conditions.
All health workers should:

• participate in quality measurement and improvement with their patients;
• embrace a practice philosophy of teamwork;
• see patients as partners in the delivery of care;
• commit themselves to providing and using data to demonstrate
the effectiveness and safety of the care.
References
1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Nikšić M et al.
Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000–14 (CONCORD-3):
analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of
18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3 [Epub ahead of print].
2. Health at a glance 2017: OECD indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development; 2017 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-
2017-en, accessed 24 February 2018).
3. Tackling wasteful spending on health. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development; 2017 (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264266414-en, accessed 24 February 2018).
4. Pittet D, Donaldson L. Clean care is safer care: a worldwide priority. Lancet.
2005;366:1246–7.
5. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesy J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A et al. The
quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. New England
Journal of Medicine. 2003;348(26):2635–45.
6. Runciman WB, Hunt TD, Hannaford NA, Hibbert PD, Westbrook JI, Coiera
EW et al. CareTrack: assessing the appropriateness of health care delivery
in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2012;197(2):100–5. doi:10.5694/
mja12.10510.
7. Health at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development; 2015 (http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/
documents/s22177en/s22177en.pdf, accessed 24 February 2018).
8. WHO fact sheet on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2018 (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en,
accessed 24 February 2018).
9. Advancing the responsible use of medicines: applying levers for change. IMS
Institute for Health Care Informatics; 2013 (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2222541, accessed 24 February 2018).
10. World health statistics 2016: monitoring health for the Sustainable
Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016 (http://who.
int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2016/EN_WHS2016_TOC.pdf,
11. Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D et
al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. Lancet.
2016;387(10018)587–603. doi:10.1016/S0140–6736(15)00837–5.
12. Water, sanitation and health. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.
who.int/water_sanitation_health/en/, accessed 24 February 2018).
13. Tracking universal health coverage: first global monitoring report. World Health
Organization and World Bank; 2015 (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/universal_
health_coverage/report/2015/en/, accessed 24 February 2018).
References
14. Slawomirski L, Auraaen A, Klazinga N. The economics of patient safety:

strengthening a value-based approach to reducing patient harm at national
level. OECD Health Working Paper No. 96. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development; 2017 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5a9858cd-en,
15. Caring for quality in health: lessons learnt from 15 reviews of health care
quality. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2017
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267787-en, accessed 24 February 2018).
16. Speakers and moderators at the Policy Forum on the Future of Health:
statement by Donald M. Berwick. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (http://www.oecd.org/health/ministerial/policy-forum/
speakers.htm, accessed 24 February 2018).
17. Arah OA, Westert GP, Hurst J, Klazinga NS. A conceptual framework for the
OECD Health Care Quality Indicators Project. International Journal for Quality in
Health Care. 2006;Suppl 1:5–13.
18. Health workforce policies in OECD countries: right jobs, right skills, right places.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 2016 (http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239517-en, accessed 24 February 2018).
19. Braithwaite J, Herkes J, Ludlow K, Testa L, Lamprell G. Association between
organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: a systematic
review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11).
20. Citizen Voice and Action: civic demand for better health and education
services. World Vision International; 2012 (https://www.wvi.org/local-advocacy/
publication/citizen-voice-and-action-project-model, accessed 24 February 2018).
21. OECD reviews of health systems: Costa Rica 2017. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development; 2017.
22. Monitoring health inequality: an essential step for achieving health equity.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
23. Leslie HH, Ndiaye Y, Kruk ME. Effective coverage of primary care services in
eight high-mortality countries. BMJ Global Health. 2017;e000424.
24. Kruk ME, Leslie HH, Verguet S, Mbaruku GM, Adanu RMK, Langer A.
Quality of basic maternal care functions in health facilities of five African
countries: an analysis of national health system surveys. Lancet Global Health.
2016;4(11):e845–55.
25. Leslie HH, Fink G, Nsona H, Kruk ME. Obstetric facility quality and
newborn mortality in Malawi: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine.
2016;13(10):e1002151.
26. Ng M, Misra A, Diwan V, Agnani M, Levin-Rector A, De Costa A. An assessment
of the impact of the JSY cash transfer program on maternal mortality reduction
in Madhya Pradesh, India. Global Health Action. 2014;7(1):24939.
27. Velenyi EV. Health care spending and economic growth. In: World scientific
handbook of global health economics and public policy. 2016:1–154.
28. Stenberg K, Hanssen O, Tan-Torres Edejer T, Bertram M, Brindley C, Meshreky
A et al. Financing transformative health systems towards achievement of
the health Sustainable Development Goals: a model for projected resource
needs in 67 low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Global Health.
2017;5(9):e875–87.
78
29. Abegunde D. Inefficiencies due to poor access to and irrational use of
medicines to treat acute respiratory tract infections in children. World health
report 2010: Background Paper No. 52. Geneva: World Health Organization
(http://www.who.int/healthsystems/topics/financing/healthreport/whr_
background/en, accessed 25 February 2018).
30. Ministerial statement: the next generation of health reforms. OECD Health
Ministerial Meeting, 17 January 2017. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (http://www.oecd.org/health/ministerial/
ministerial-statement-2017.pdf, accessed 27 February 2018).
31. Institute of Medicine. Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance, volume
I. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 1990 (https://doi.
org/10.17226/1547, accessed 25 February 2018).
32. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the
21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2001 (https://doi.
org/10.17226/10027, accessed 25 February 2018).
33. Maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health: what is quality of care and
why is it important? Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/
maternal_child_adolescent/topics/quality-of-care/definition/en/, accessed 25
February 2018).
34. Global Health Observatory data. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://
www.who.int/gho, accessed 26 February 2018).
35. Data for measuring health care quality and outcomes: OECD Health Care
Quality Indicators Project. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-care-quality-
indicators.htm, accessed 26 February 2018).
36. DataBank: Service Delivery Indicators. Washington (DC): World Bank (http://
databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=service-delivery-indicators,
37. Demographic and Health Surveys. DHS Program (https://dhsprogram.com/,
38. Donabedian A, Wheeler JR, Wyszewianski L. Quality, cost, and health: an
integrative model. Medical Care. 1982;10:975–92.
39. Das J, Holla A, Das V, Mohanan M, Tabak D, Chan B. In urban and rural India,
a standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge
quality gaps. Health Affairs. 2012;31(12):2774–84.
40. Martin GH, Pimhidzai O. Kenya service delivery indicators. Washington (DC):
World Bank; 2013.
41. Peabody JW, Tozija F, Muñoz JA, Nordyke RJ, Luck J. Using vignettes to compare
the quality of clinical care variation in economically divergent countries. Health
Services Research. 2004;39(6 Pt 2):1951–70.
42. Leonard KL, Melkiory CM, Vialou A. Getting doctors to do their best: the
roles of ability and motivation in health care. Journal of Human Resources.
2007;42(3):682–700.
43. Rethans JJ, Sturmans F, Drop R, Van der Vleuten CPM, Hobus P. Does
competence of general practitioners predict their performance? Comparison
between examination setting and actual practice. BMJ. 1991;303(6814):1377–
80.
References
44. Das J, Hammer J, Leonard K. The quality of medical advice in low-

income countries: facts and economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
2008;22(2):93–114.
45. Graversen L, Christensen B, Borch-Johnsen K, Lauritzen T, Sandbaek A. General
practitioners’ adherence to guidelines on management of dyslipidaemia:
ADDITION-Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care.
2010;28(1):47–54.
46. Kingston-Riechers J, Ospina M, Jonsson E, Childs P. McLeod L, Maxted JM.
Patient safety in primary care. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Patient Safety Institute
and BC Patient Safety and Quality Council; 2010.
47. Levinson DR. Adverse events in skilled nursing facilities: national incidence
among Medicare beneficiaries. Department of Health and Human Services,
United States of America; 2014.
48. Etchells E, Koo M, Shojania K, Matlow A. The economics of patient safety in
acute care. Canadian Patient Safety Institute; 2012.
49. Wilson RM, Michel P, Olsen S, Gibberd RW, Vincent C, El-Assady R et al. Patient
safety in developing countries: retrospective estimation of scale and nature of
harm to patients in hospital. BMJ. 2012;344:e832.
50. Patient experience with ambulatory care. In: Health at a glance 2015: OECD
indicators. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
2015.
51. Rosen HE, Lynam PF, Carr C, Reis V, Ricca R, Bazant ES et al. on behalf of the
Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care Study Group of the Maternal and Child
Health Integrated Program. Direct observation of respectful maternity care in
five countries: a cross-sectional study of health facilities in East and Southern
Africa. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2015;15(1):306.
52. Asefa A, Bekele D. Status of respectful and non-abusive care during facility-
based childbirth in a hospital and health centres in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Reproductive Health. 2015;12(1):33.
53. Andaleeb SS. Service quality perceptions and patient satisfaction: a
study of hospitals in a developing country. Social Science and Medicine.
2001;52(9):1359–70.
54. Dansky KH, Miles J. Patient satisfaction with ambulatory healthcare
services: waiting time and filling time. Journal of Healthcare Management.
1997;42(2):165.
55. Bar-dayan Y. Waiting time is a major predictor of patient satisfaction in a
primary military clinic. Military Medicine. 2002;167(10):842.
56. Calvello EJ, Skog AP, Tenner AG, Wallis LA. Applying the lessons of maternal
mortality reduction to global emergency health. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization. 2015;93(6):417–23.
57. Banerjea K, Carter AO. Waiting and interaction times for patients in a
developing country accident and emergency department. Emergency Medicine
Journal. 2006;23(4):286–90.
58. Oche MO, Adamu H. Determinants of patient waiting time in the general
outpatient department of a tertiary health institution in north western Nigeria.
Annals of Medical and Health Sciences Research. 2013;3(4):588–92.
59. United States National Healthcare Disparities Report. United States Department of
Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015.
80
60. Hospital care for heart attacks among First Nations, Inuit and Métis. Canadian
Institute for Healthcare Information; 2013 (https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/
HeartAttacksFirstNationsEn-Web.pdf, accessed 26 February 2018).
61. Sharma J, Leslie HH, Kundu F, Kruk ME. Poor quality for poor women?
Inequities in the quality of antenatal and delivery care in Kenya. PLoS ONE.
2017;12(1):e0171236.
62. Das J, Mohpal A. Socioeconomic status and quality of care in rural India:
new evidence from provider and household surveys. Health Affairs.
2016;35(10):1764–73.
63. Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty MM, Pierson R, Applebaum S. New 2011
survey of patients with complex care needs in 11 countries finds that care is
often poorly coordinated. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2437–48.
64. Barker I, Steventon A, Deeny SR. Association between continuity of care
in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive
conditions: cross-sectional study of routinely collected, person-level data. BMJ.
2017;356:j84http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j84.
65. World health report 2010. Health systems financing: the path to universal
coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
66. Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, Elshaug AG, Glasziou P, Heath I et
al. Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world. Lancet.
2017;390(10090):156–68.
67. Health care systems: efficiency and policy settings. Paris: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2010 (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264094901-en, accessed 26 February 2018).
68. Strengthening integrated, people-centred health services. Resolution
WHA69.24, adopted at the World Health Assembly, 28 May 2016. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2016.
69. Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health: Workforce 2030. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2016 (http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/
globstrathrh-2030/en/, accessed 26 February 2018).
70. Perry HB, Zulliger R, Rogers MM. Community health workers in low-, middle-,
and high-income countries: an overview of their history, recent evolution, and
current effectiveness. Annual Review of Public Health. 2014;35(1):399–421.
71. Gilmore B, McAuliffe E. Effectiveness of community health workers delivering
preventive interventions for maternal and child health in low-and middle-
income countries: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:847.
72. Thapa A, Chaudhary P, Schwarz R. Embracing global standards for community
health care on Nepal’s path towards universal health coverage. The Lancet
Global Health Blog, 26 January 2018 (http://globalhealth.thelancet.
com/2018/01/26/embracing-global-standards-community-health-care-nepals-
path-towards-universal-health, accessed 26 February 2018).
73. Andrabi T, Das J, Khwaja AI. Delivering education: a pragmatic framework
for improving education in low-income countries. Policy Research Working
Paper No. WPS 7277. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2015 (http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/439891468001164200/Delivering-education-a-
pragmatic-framework-for-improving-education-in-low-income-countries,
References
74. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crips N, Evans T et al. Health professionals
for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an
interdependent world. Lancet. 2010;376(9756):1923–58.
75. Guidelines on transforming and scaling up health professionals’
education and training. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 (http://
whoeducationguidelines.org/content/about-guidelines, accessed 26 February
2018).
76. Increasing access to health workers in remote and rural areas through improved
retention: global policy recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2010.
77. Cristobal F, Worley P. Can medical education in poor rural areas be cost-
effective and sustainable: the case of the Ateneo de Zamboanga University
School of Medicine. Rural and Remote Health. 2012;12:1835.
78. Leslie HH, Spiegelman D, Zhou X, Kruk ME. Service readiness of health facilities
in Bangladesh, Haiti, Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Rwanda, Senegal,
Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization. 2017;95:738–48.
79. Spurring improvements in primary health care. Primary Health Care
Performance Initiative (https://www.phcperformanceinitiative.org, accessed 26
February 2018).
80. Brubakk K, Vist GE, Bukholm G, Barach P, Tjomsland O. A systematic review
of hospital accreditation: the challenges of measuring complex intervention
effects. BMC Health Services Research. 2015;15:280.
81. Flodgren G, Gonçalves-Bradley DC, Pomey MP. External inspection of
compliance with standards for improved healthcare outcomes. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;12:CD008992. doi:10.1002/14651858.
CD008992.pub3.
82. Antimicrobial resistance: policy insights. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development; 2016 (http://www.oecd.org/health/
antimicrobial-resistance.htm, accessed 27 February 2018).
83. Lewis PJ, Dornan T, Taylor D, Tully MP, Wass V, Ashcroft DM. Prevalence,
incidence and nature of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a systematic
review. Drug Safety. 2009;32:379–89.
84. The world medicines situation 2011: rational use of medicines. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2011 (http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/world_
medicines_situation/WMS_ch14_wRational.pdf, accessed 27 February 2018).
85. WHO baseline country survey on medical devices. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2013 (http://www.who.int/medical_devices/safety/en/, accessed
27 February 2018).
86. Cruz JR. Seeking a safer blood supply. Lancet. 2005;365(9469):1463–64.
87. Management of patient information: trends and challenges in Member States,
based on the findings of the second Global Survey on eHealth. Geneva: World
Health Organization; 2012.
88. Hagen TP, Häkkinen U, Belicza E, Fatore G, Goude F, and on behalf of the
EuroHOPE study group. Acute myocardial infarction, use of percutaneous
coronary intervention, and mortality: a comparative effectiveness analysis
covering seven European countries. Health Economics. 2015;24:88–101.
82
89. European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (http://echo-health.eu,
90. Data for health and sustainable development. Health Data Collaborative
(https://www.healthdatacollaborative.org, accessed 27 February 2018).
91. Recommendation of the OECD Council on health data governance. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2017 (http://www.
oecd.org/health/health-systems/Recommendation-of-OECD-Council-on-Health-
Data-Governance-Booklet.pdf, accessed 27 February 2018).
92. Case study on narrowing the gaps for equity, Uganda. Right to identity: using
mobile technologies to improve delivery of, and access to, birth registration
services for all children. UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office;
2012.
93. Better ways to pay for health care. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development; 2016 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264258211-en,
94. Recommendations to OECD ministers of health from the High Level Reflection
Group on the Future of Health Statistics: strengthening the international
comparison of health system performance through patient-reported indicators.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2017
(https:// www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Recommendations-from-high-level-
reflection-group-on-the-future-of-health-statistics.pdf, accessed 27 February
2018).
95. Deepening health reform in China: building high-quality and value-based
service delivery. World Bank, World Health Organization, Ministry of Finance of
China, National Health and Family Planning Commission of China, Ministry of
Human Resources and Social Security of China; 2016.
96. Mills KT, Bundy JD, Kelly TN, Reed JE, Kearney PM, Reynolds K et al. Global
disparities of hypertension prevalence and control: a systematic analysis of
population-based studies from 90 countries. Circulation. 2016;134:441–50.
97. Bitton A, Ratcliffe HL, Veillard JH, Kress DH, Barkley S, Kimball M et al.
Primary health care as a foundation for strengthening health systems in
low- and middle-income countries. Journal of General Internal Medicine.
2017;32(5):566–71.
98. Eklund K, Wilhelmson K. Outcomes of coordinated and integrated interventions
targeting frail elderly people: a systematic review of randomised controlled
trials. Health and Social Care in the Community. 2009;17(5):447–58.
99. Leichsenring K. Developing integrated health and social care services for older
persons in Europe. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2004;4:e10.
100. Patients for Patient Safety. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.
who.int/patientsafety/patients_for_patient, accessed 27 February 2018).
101. Laverack G. Improving health outcomes through community
empowerment: a review of the literature. Journal of Health, Population and
Nutrition. 2006;24(1):113–20.
102. World health report 2008. Primary health care: now more than ever. Geneva:
World Health Organization; 2008.
103. WHO Framework on Integrated, People-centred Health Services. Geneva: World
Health Organization (http://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-
centred-care/en/, accessed 27 February 2018).
References
104. Quality of care: making strategic choices. Geneva: World Health Organization;
2006.
105. Leatherman S, Sutherland K. Designing national quality reforms: a framework
for action. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):334–40.
106. Ethiopian National Health Care Quality Strategy 2016–2020: transforming the
quality of health care in Ethiopia. Government of Ethiopia: Ministry of Health.
107. Juran J. Overcoming resistance to organizational change. Quality and Safety in
Health Care. 2006;15:380–82. doi:10.1136/qhsc.2006.020016.
108. The INDICAS system. Government of Mexico: Ministry of Health (http://dgces.
salud.gob.mx/INDICASII/index2.phpm accessed 2 March 2018).
109. Sarabia-González O, García-Saisó S, Cabrero-Castro E, Moreno-Sánchez P,
Mayer-Rivera FJ, Delgado-Bernal M. Política de calidad en México [Quality policy
in Mexico]. In: García-Saisó S, Hernández-Torres F, editors. La calidad de la
atención a la salud en México a través de sus instituciones [The quality of health
care in Mexico across its institutions], second edition. Government of Mexico,
Ministry of Health; 2015:283–304 (in Spanish).
110. Ruelas E, Gómez-Dantés O, Morales W. Mexico. In: Braithwaite J, Matsuyama
Y, Mannion R, Johnson J. Healthcare reform, quality and safety: perspectives,
participants, partnerships and prospects in 30 countries. Ashgate; 2015:193–202.
111. Health care-associated infections: fact sheet. Geneva: World Health
Organization; 2011 (http://www.who.int/gpsc/country_work/gpsc_ccisc_fact_
sheet_en.pdf, accessed 28 February 2018).
112. Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health
facilities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
113. Morrison J, Thapa R, Hartley S, Osrin D, Manandhar M, Tumbahangphe K et al.
Understanding how women’s groups improve maternal and newborn health in
Makwanpur, Nepal: a qualitative study. International Health. 2010;2(1):25–35.
114. Brennan TA, Berwick DM. New rules: regulation, markets, and the quality of
American health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1108.
115. Payments to Ontario physicians from Ministry of Health and long-term care
sources 1992/93 to 2009/10. ICES investigative report, February 2012 (https://
www.ices.on.ca/Publications/Atlases-and-Reports/2012/Payments-to-Ontario-
Physicians, accessed 2 March 2018).
116. Excellent Care for All: legislation, regulations and policy. Government of
Ontario, Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (http://www.health.gov.on.ca/
en/pro/programs/ecfa/legislation/, accessed 2 March 2018).
117. Dixon-Woods M, McNicol S, Martin G. Ten challenges in improving quality in
healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation’s programme evaluations and
relevant literature. BMJ. 2012;21:10.
118. Safer Patients Initiative phase one: mixed method evaluation of a large-scale
organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK Hospitals.
London: Health Foundation; 2011.
119. Ling T, Soper B, Buxton M, Hanney S, Oortwijn W, Scoggins A et al. How do
you get clinicians involved in quality improvement? An evaluation of the Health
Foundation’s Engaging with Quality Initiative: a programme of work to support
clinicians to drive forward quality. London: Health Foundation; 2010.
84
120. Learning report, Safer Patients Initiative: lessons from the first major
improvement programme addressing patient safety in the UK. London: Health
Foundation; 2011.
121. Needham DM, Sinopoli DJ, Dinglas VD, Berenholtz SM, Korupolu R, Watson
SR et al. Improving data quality control in quality improvement projects.
International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2009;21(2):145–50.
122. Pronovost PJ, Nolan T, Zeger S, Miller M, Rubin H. How can clinicians measure
safety and quality in acute care? Lancet. 2004;363(9414):1061–7.
Annex – Improvement interventions
This annex defines and presents further information and research on a selection of
improvement interventions.
1. Licensing of health care providers is a key determinant of a well performing
health system. However, emerging work looking at performance differences between
licensed and unlicensed practitioners suggests that licensing alone is not enough to
assure quality care. For example, a World Bank study on a rural area of India – where
there are 15 times as many unqualified providers as those with a medical degree –
found that formal training is not a guarantor of high quality. The study observed minor
differences between trained and untrained doctors in adherence to safety checklists
and no differences in the likelihood of providers giving the diagnosis or providing
the correct treatment (1). These findings suggest that formally trained doctors may
know what they should be doing clinically but that further interventions are needed to
ensure compliance with higher-quality standards of care (2). Systematic monitoring of
quality and individual feedback to providers, as well as patient education on provider
competence, are other methods for improving quality of care (3).
2. Accreditation is the public recognition, by an external body, of an organization’s
level of performance against a set of prespecified standards (4). Accreditation can be
granted by public sector, non-profit and for-profit bodies. Historically, metrics used to
assess accreditation have been structural and process oriented, such as the presence
of adequate medical equipment, staffing ratios and adherence to programmatic
standards. Minimal research has been conducted on the relationship between
accreditation and clinical outcomes. In one study in Egypt, mean patient satisfaction
scores were significantly higher for accredited nongovernmental health units across a
few domains: cleanliness, waiting area, waiting time, unit staff and overall satisfaction
(5). At least theoretically, accreditation offers some benefits, such as increased public
trust and confidence, self-regulating behaviour on the part of health care institutions,
and a basis for incentives and sanctions for performance management. Maintenance
of an effective accreditation programme may be challenging, for several reasons: the
need for additional resources to address structural and performance deficiencies of
facilities in preparation for accreditation, continual adaptation to ensure standards
are up to date with the evidence, and sustained funding for national or international
accreditation (6, 7). In many circumstances, a period of targeted technical assistance
will be necessary prior to the implementation of an accreditation programme (6).
3. Clinical governance includes the systematic promotion of activities such as clinical
audit; clinical risk management; patient or service user involvement; professional
education and development; clinical effectiveness research and development; use
of information systems; and institutional clinical governance committees (8). Clinical
governance is a concept used to improve management, accountability and the provision
of quality care. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom has pioneered
large-scale implementation of clinical governance activities (9). Although literature
from low- and middle-income countries remains limited, a case study from Indonesia
showed that clinical governance was used to improve maternal and newborn health
in 22 hospitals (10). The most acceptable mechanisms to drive clinical governance are
Annex
Improvement interventions
those that recognize professional leadership and are perceived as being locally relevant
and allowing reflection on personal professional practice (11).
4. Public reporting is a strategy used to increase transparency and accountability on
issues of quality and cost in the health care system by providing consumers, payers,
health care organizations and providers with comparative information on performance.
It includes a broad range of approaches, such as report cards on hospital performance,
comparative prices and costs in a community, and benchmarking on clinical indicators
for providers. Public reporting has been implemented in several high-income countries,
including Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, where evidence shows
that it catalyses improvement. In low-resource countries less has been published, but
several cases are illustrative of potential impact. In Afghanistan, the Ministry of Public
Health produced and released publicly a balanced scorecard (12), using household
survey and annual hospital survey data, which showed progressive improvement in
the national scores between 2004 and 2008 in all six domains, including patient and
community satisfaction, capacity for service provision, overall quality of services, and
reduction of user fees (13).
5. Performance-based financing is a broad term for remuneration provided to health
care providers based on performance measures. Often the amount contingent on
performance is a subcomponent of the full payment, which may be based on fee for
service, capitation or other calculations. Payment can be allocated at the individual
level or group level (for example hospital, department or care team). Evidence shows
mixed success, depending on factors such as substantial buy-in from stakeholders,
institutional capabilities, and the competency of the financing scheme or fund holder
(14–17). A field experiment from Rwanda suggests that performance-based financing
may be feasible (and preferable to input-based financing) in sub-Saharan Africa (15).
The study found improvement across a number of access and knowledge indicators,
for example 62% reduction in out-of-pocket costs, 144% increase in deliveries by
skilled persons, and 23% increase in knowledge of HIV transmission risks through
skin-piercing objects, but found no impact on clinical outcomes (15). Similarly, results
from a pilot in Nigeria found an increase in antenatal care visits, and the use of skilled
delivery (17).
6. Training and supervision of health workers are among the most common
interventions to improve the quality of health care in low- and middle-income countries.
Despite extensive investments from donors, evaluations of the long-term effect of
these two interventions are scarce. One study found that training and supervision did
not meaningfully improve quality of care for pregnant women or sick children in sub-
Saharan Africa (18). Another study from Benin found that workers who had received
integrated management of childhood illness training plus study supports provided better
care than those with training plus usual supports, and both groups performed better
than untrained workers (19). In a related project in Benin to strengthen supervision of
health workers, after some initial success, many obstacles were encountered at multiple
levels of the health system that led to a breakdown in supervision, including poor
coordination, inadequate management skills, ineffective management teams, lack of
motivation, decentralization, health worker resistance, less priority given to programme-
specific supervision, supervision workload, non-supervision activities, incomplete
implementation of project interventions, and loss of leadership and effective supervisors
(20). The study concluded that support from leaders is crucial, and that donors and
politicians thus need to make supervision a priority (20).
7. Medicines regulation improves the quality of medicines, both produced and
available. While between 5% and 15% of WHO Member States report cases of
88
counterfeit medicines, this is probably a considerable underestimate. Globally,
medicine regulation capacity is limited; WHO estimates that 30% of countries have no
medicine regulation or a regulatory entity that does not function properly (21). A study
in Uganda assessed the effectiveness of national standard treatment guidelines on
rational medicine prescribing and found significant improvement in the treatment
of general cases, malaria and diarrhoea (22). Due to the extent to which medicine
regulatory authorities are both financially and human resource intensive, it can be
challenging to ensure that guidelines are followed. This is noted to be the case especially
in poorer countries (21). It has been argued that resource-constrained countries should
rely on the assessment of major medicine regulatory authorities, such as those in
the United States and Europe, when assessing certain categories of medicines (23).
This does not solve the problem of enforcement, and high-income country guidelines
may not align with the attributes other countries identify as most important. Best-
practice prescribing strategies that have had proven success in both developing and
industrialized countries include standard treatment guidelines, essential medicine lists,
pharmacy and therapeutic committees, professional training, and targeted in-service
education (24).
8. Inspection of institutions for minimum safety standards can be used as a
mechanism to ensure there is baseline capacity and resources to maintain a safe clinical
environment. Although there is little formal literature on the inspection of institutions
for minimum safety standards at the hospital or health centre level (25), inspection
factors known to improve safety practices include consistency between standards,
approval of standards by a country’s ministry, and proper supervision to communicate
standards and help practitioners use them in everyday practice (26). At the minimum,
inspection standards can identify structural elements that are foundational for quality:
a clean water source, reliable power and backup capacity, adequate coverage by skilled
health care workers, clear management responsibility, complete medical records and
accountability.
9. Safety protocols, such as those for hand hygiene, address many of the avoidable
risks that threaten the well-being of patients and cause suffering and harm (27). Health
care-associated infections are the most frequent adverse event in health care delivery
worldwide (28), the most common being infections of surgical wounds, the blood
stream, the urinary tract and the lower respiratory tract (29). Yet, hand hygiene is a
worldwide problem, with compliance rates averaging less than 40% (30). Hand hygiene
studies have shown an impact on hand hygiene rates ranging from 10% to almost
50% (31, 32). Twenty hospital-based studies published between 1977 and 2008 showed
an association between improved hand hygiene practices and reduced infection (33).
Additionally, hand hygiene programmes can be cost-effective: one study in Viet
Nam calculated that for every health care-associated infection averted, the hospital
saved US$ 1000 (32). Behaviour change requires multifaceted approaches focusing
on system change, administrative support, motivation, availability of alcohol-based
hand sanitizers and safe, reliable water and soap, training and intensive education
of health care workers, and reminders in the workplace (30, 34, 35). Compliance is
a pervasive problem dependent on many structural factors, including professional
position (doctor, nursing assistant, physiotherapist technician), department or type of
care delivered, staffing ratios, and the presence of relevant safety equipment such as
gloves (33). Moreover, programmes need to be context sensitive (for example, alcohol-
based sanitizers should be used where clean water is not reliably available) (31, 35).
10. Safety checklists, such as surgical safety checklists, can have a positive impact
on reducing both clinical complications and mortality. In one study performed in
eight diverse hospitals in a mixture of high- and low-income settings, postoperative
Annex
complication rates fell on average by 36% and death rates fell by a similar amount
following increased adherence to six core safety processes covered by a provided
checklist (36). Moreover, if during the first year of instituting a checklist major
complications are prevented, a hospital will realize a return on its investment (37).
However, evidence suggests that the successful uptake of checklists requires education
of clinical staff, material resources, and integration into broader institutional efforts
and clinical context (38–40). These factors have been shown to be particularly relevant
in low- and middle-income countries (38). Poor checklist implementation in low-income
settings might not only fail to reduce patient safety risks, but may also introduce new
risks such as gaming, disengagement and other behaviours harmful to patient care
(38). Implementation of surgical checklists is more likely to be optimized in established,
multifaceted patient safety programmes (38).
11. Adverse event reporting documents an adverse or unwanted medical occurrence
resulting from specific health services or during a patient encounter (41). Reporting
of adverse events is a strategy to raise awareness, increase transparency and foster
accountability regarding unsafe care. Adverse events due to medical care represent a
major source of morbidity and mortality globally. A study looking at the global burden
of unsafe medical care estimated that there are 421 million hospitalizations in the world
annually, with approximately 42.7 million adverse events occurring resulting in 23 million
disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost per year (42). Approximately two thirds of all
adverse events occurred in low- and middle-income countries. Unsafe medical care may
lead patients, especially in low-income countries, to opt out of using the formal health
care system, thereby making unsafe care a significant barrier to access for many of the
world’s poor. Consumption of resources due to prolonged stay and extra care, as well as
loss of wages and productivity, is a further consequence of unsafe care.
12. Clinical decision support (CDS) is the provision of knowledge and patient-
specific information presented at appropriate times to enhance front-line health care
delivery. CDS encompasses a variety of tools to enhance decision-making, such as
clinical guidelines, condition-specific order sets, computerized alerts and reminders,
documentation templates, and diagnostic support. CDS can be automated (embedded
within electronic health records or mobile devices) or paper based. Although electronic
CDS has many advantages, it does require ongoing technical assistance and may be
subject to challenges of poor infrastructure, such as limited access to the Internet or
unreliable power supply (43). A number of studies have examined the feasibility of
implementing CDS in low- and middle-income countries, but there is only minimal
evidence on its impact on health so far (43, 44). Studies note the need to balance CDS
prompts that are in place to standardize care for better quality with the physician’s
autonomy to make decisions based on context, clinical expertise, and unique patient
needs (43–45).
13. Clinical standards, pathways and protocols are tools to guide evidence-based
health care that have been implemented internationally since the 1980s (46). In high-
income settings, clinical pathways have been used to improve care for diverse conditions,
including acute myocardial infarction and stroke. For example, a study from Australia
showed that after introduction of a clinical pathway programme with checklists and
reminders, an additional 48% of acute myocardial infarction patients received beta
blockers within 24 hours of admission (47). Similarly, following introduction of a
clinical pathway programme, an additional 55% of ischaemic stroke patients received
aspirin or clopidogrel within 24 hours of admission (47). Another study from the
United States incorporated “best of care” clinical protocols into clinician’s workflow
via care provider order entry and showed that the decision support tool significantly
increased the number of patients receiving aspirin for acute myocardial infarction (48).
90
Clinical pathways and protocols are also used in low- and middle-income settings,
where national guidelines are published periodically and serve as an important source
of reference for clinicians and public health officials, particularly for vertical disease-
focused programmes such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS (49, 50).
14. Clinical audit and feedback is a strategy to improve patient care through tracking
adherence to explicit standards and guidelines coupled with provision of actionable
feedback. A common usage worldwide is to foster implementation of clinical practice
guidelines, whereby audit and feedback is used to identify unjustified variation and
increase guideline adherence. Audit at both individual and hospital levels is a key part
of the Catalonian Cancer Strategy (Spain) for promoting equity (51). Even in rural,
resource-limited settings, for example in the United Republic of Tanzania, clinical audit
has been associated with a decrease in maternal mortality and morbidity (52). Research
in higher-income countries has demonstrated that higher-performing facilities tend
to deliver more timely, individualized and non-punitive feedback to providers than
lower-performing facilities (53). While most studies do not quantify the extent to which
audit and feedback concretely impacts adherence to standards, they do highlight the
frequency of medical errors and provide a descriptive account of care quality in a given
setting, helping clinical staff to identify and address areas for needed improvement.
Noted challenges to successful implementation include resource availability, provider
buy-in and leadership support for the process, consistency in understanding and
implementation of guidelines, the accuracy of information in clinical records, and the
effectiveness of continuing feedback mechanisms (51, 54).
15. Morbidity and mortality reviews provide a collaborative learning mechanism and
transparent review process for clinicians to examine their practice and identify areas of
improvement, such as patient outcomes and adverse events, without fear of blame (55).
Morbidity and mortality reviews are used to bring together clinical staff to review, for
learning purposes, what contributed to complications or a patient’s death (55). As such,
they promote active recognition of mistakes or errors, and are an opportunity to learn
as well as to identify needed process improvements. They have been shown to improve
collaboration and communication, aid team-based learning, and result in changes in
record keeping and governance relevant to patient safety (55 –57). Historically they have
been popular in higher-resourced contexts, but studies are emerging that demonstrate
potential in low- and middle-income countries. Descriptive work from Nepal suggests
that they are feasible in rural, low‑resource contexts (56). Research across geographical
and economic contexts points to the importance of senior administrative participation,
engagement of both clinical and non-clinical staff, clear identification of goals, selection
of cases based on their potential for improvement and coordinated follow-up for
improvement activities as key success factors (55–57).
16. Collaborative and team-based improvement cycles are a formalized method that
brings together multiple teams from hospitals or clinics to work together on improvement
around a focused topic area over a defined period of time. Several of the common
features of collaboratives are the sharing of ideas for improvement, iterative testing
of actions leading to improvement, and mutual learning across multiple health care
organizations. Studies from high-income settings, such as the National Surgical Infection
Prevention Collaborative or the collaborative to decrease caesarean delivery rates, have
shown that collaboratives can be very effective, reducing infection rates from 27% to
1.7% and caesarean section rates by 30% in a matter of months (58–60). Collaboratives
have also been used in low-income settings. For example, the Ethiopian Hospital Alliance
for Quality was a national collaborative sponsored by Ethiopia’s Federal Ministry of
Health. It included 68 hospitals, of which 44 showed a 10% improvement in a 10-point
measure of patient satisfaction from the beginning to the end of the study period (61).
Annex
USAID funded 54 collaboratives in 14 low- and middle-income countries during the

period 1998–2008. A meta-analysis of 27 of these collaboratives in 12 low- and middle-
income countries showed that high-level performance was maintained for an average
of 13 months and the average time to reach 80% performance was 9.2 months, while
the average time to reach 90% performance was 14.4 months (62).
17. Formalized community engagement and empowerment refers to the active
and intentional contribution of community members to the health of a community’s
population and the performance of the health delivery system. Community involvement
in health has many forms and approaches, including the adoption of behaviours
to prevent and treat diseases; effective participation in disease control activities;
contribution to the design, implementation and monitoring of health programmes;
and provision of resources for health. Participation and input to health systems can
occur through various means, such as needs analysis, high-level priority setting or
participation on governing boards. Many case examples can be found; for example,
in Eritrea and Senegal, strengthened community participation in malaria control led to
a decrease in severe malaria cases (63), and preliminary analysis of the Ebola outbreak
indicates that more formalized community participation efforts resulted in a significant
impact on the identification and tracing of cases and broader trust in local Ebola
treatment units (64). Health system reform processes have increasingly recognized the
essential contribution of communities; in Kenya, feasibility was tested in district-level
annual health sector planning where community participation did influence target
and priority setting. Challenges of formalized community involvement include building
capacity to empower communities, providing tools and products to support community
involvement, and appropriate follow-up and supervision by health professionals.
18. Health literacy is the capacity to obtain and understand basic health information
required to make appropriate health decisions on the part of patients, families and
wider communities (65). Poor health literacy is a challenge for health care quality;
for example, patients with low literacy have difficulty following medical instructions,
interacting with the health care system, and reading or complying with medicine
prescriptions (65). Additionally, patients with low disease-specific knowledge report
lower quality of life and have poorer health-related outcomes (65). Studies show
educational interventions can have an impact on both knowledge improvement
and clinical care seeking. For example, an intervention in Malawi led to a significant
improvement in knowledge pertaining to mental health literacy (66), and a study
in India found a positive association between health literacy programming and
child vaccination rates (67). However, literacy gains lessen with time, so follow-up
programming is key. Research suggests targeting influencers, such as teachers, to
extend programmatic reach and ensure long-term impact (66, 67). Other considerations
include the integration of health literacy curricula into required schooling, which is
especially common with sexual health education (68).
19. Shared decision-making between providers and patients is often employed
to tailor care to the patient’s needs and preferences, with the goal of achieving
better patient outcomes. There is considerable evidence that patients want more
information and greater involvement (69), but few studies have evaluated the impact
on clinical outcomes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Inadequate
communication between providers can result in missed services (70). Barriers to patient
activation, however, exist in many public health sector settings, such as in clinics, which
are often congested and overstretched (71). One study on adherence to antiretroviral
therapy and shared decision-making or “patient activation” found that after diagnosis,
patients actually preferred provider-led decision-making, but as they gained comfort
with their HIV diagnosis, they were more open to a shared decision‑making approach
92
to HIV treatment (71). There is no evidence that shared decision-making negatively
impacts clinical care, though there may be limitations to what can be addressed
in a single clinical visit, given such factors as local concepts of illness or historically
grounded distrust of “Western” medicine, which may motivate patients to seek
traditional medicines (70).
20. Peer support and expert patient groups link people living with similar clinical
conditions in order to share knowledge and experiences. The approach complements
and enhances other health care services by creating the emotional, social and practical
support necessary for managing health problems and staying as healthy as possible.
The extensive literature supporting the effectiveness of peer support and patient groups
in HIV-infected adults provides insight into what is both feasible and achievable as a
strategy for improving quality of care. A systematic review of the impact of support
groups on people living with HIV showed that support groups were associated with
reduced mortality and morbidity, increased retention in care and improved quality of
life (72). Group visits have shown promise in providing individual patients with a peer
support network to maximize adherence, improve patient retention, provide patient
education, monitor side effects, and achieve therapeutic gains (73). In a South African
support group, participants were significantly more likely to have an undetectable viral
load and a CD4 cell count greater than 200 cells/mL at 12 months than those who did
not participate in a support group (72). Given the severe human resource challenges
worldwide, specifically the shortage of trained health care providers, support groups
can play a larger role in improving the effectiveness of models of care (72).
21. Patient feedback and experience of care as a strategy to better understand and
improve health service quality has risen dramatically, primarily in high-income countries.
In these contexts there is a growing body of evidence that self-reported experience
correlates with other, more objective, measures of clinical quality (74). Patient-reported
measures are associated with better patient experience, adherence to treatment,
greater engagement with their care, and better outcomes (75, 76). A few studies in low-
and middle-income countries have shown that patients can adequately judge certain
aspects of their care. For example, a study based in the United Republic of Tanzania
found that patients proactively sought care based on their clinical needs, as judged by
the type and severity of symptoms, as well as the perceived value of previously received
care (77). Audit-based evidence from primary care settings in India found that patients
have a good idea of what they both want and need from doctors and are willing to pay
for it (78). Some critics are concerned that the main determinants of patient experience
may be driven by factors such as the attractiveness of the environment or amicability
of staff; however, it has been shown that patients are able to differentiate superficial
comforts from more meaningful engagement.
22. Patient self-management tools are technologies and techniques used by patients
and families to manage their health issues outside formal medical institutions. They
are increasingly studied as quality improvement tools in the context of growing
empowerment of patients worldwide. Given the increasing prevalence of chronic
disease globally, diabetes self-management serves as a good example. Diabetic patients
involved with self-management education programmes demonstrated significant
reductions in glycosylated haemoglobin levels; in Uganda, patient outcomes included
decreases in HbA1c percentage and diastolic blood pressure, and in Honduras, reports
of self-care demonstrated improvements in over 50% of patients in blood sugar
levels, diet and medication adherence (79). One economic analysis of interventions
for diabetes found that diabetes self-management training reduces medical costs
in developing countries in the short term (80). Because mobile phones are widely
available, mHealth interventions for self-management can be a cost-effective tool (79).
Annex
Challenges to widespread implementation include both geographical and financial

access to such self-management programmes, trained human resources at central and
peripheral levels, and access to education (81).
23. Health technology assessment (HTA) is conducted to find out how health care
technologies help maintain and improve health. HTA is used to inform policy and clinical
decision-making related to both the introduction and diffusion of a wide spectrum of
health technologies (82, 83). Assessing whether HTA affects quality involves looking
at the long-term pay-off of policies that have been implemented and demonstrated
success. HTA has many different applications, such as policy-making for influenza
vaccination of children, informing the development of reimbursement schemes in
Sweden (which resulted in decreased annual costs), influencing characteristics of
health benefit packages in Thailand or Chile (84–86), or defining the role of specific
laparoscopic surgery techniques in Kazakhstan (87). Cohesion amongst and between
stakeholders is necessary for the successful implementation of HTA with participation
from health care professionals, patient advocacy groups, and the industry, such as
medical technology or pharmaceutical firms (88). Transparency in analytics, costs and
outcomes (real-life patient data) is key for HTA assessment to be successful (83). Because
timely and appropriate access to health care products, procedures and medicines can
often impact patient outcomes, HTA represents an important mechanism for improving
quality of care for both individuals and populations.
94
Annex references
1. Das J, Holla A, Das V, Mohanan M, Tabak D, Chan B. In urban and rural India, a
standardized patient study showed low levels of provider training and huge quality gaps.
Health Affairs (Millwood). 2012;31(12):2774–84.
2. Das J, Hammer J. Money for nothing: the dire straits of medical practice in Delhi, India.
Policy Research Working Paper No. 3669. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2005.
3. Das J, Hammer J. Location, location, location: residence, wealth, and the quality of medical
care in Delhi, India. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2007;26(3):w338–51.
4. Smits H, Supachutikul A, Mate KS. Hospital accreditation: lessons from low- and
middle‑income countries. Globalization and Health. 2014;10(1):65.
5. Al Tehewy M, Salem B, Habil I, El Okda S. Evaluation of accreditation program in
non‑governmental organizations’ health units in Egypt: short-term outcomes. International
Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2009;21(3):183–9.
6. Bukonda N, Tavrow P, Abdallah H, Hoffner K, Tembo J. Implementing a national hospital
accreditation program: the Zambian experience. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care. 2002;14(Suppl 1):7–16.
7. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M, Westbrook JI, Pawsey M, Mumford V et al.
Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2012;
21(12):979–91.
8. Scott I. What are the most effective strategies for improving quality and safety of health
care? Internal Medicine Journal. 2009;39(6):389–400.
9. Scally G, Donaldson LJ. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement
in the new NHS in England. BMJ. 1998;317(7150):61–5.
10. Amelia D, Suhowatsky S, Baharuddin M, Tholandi M, Hyre A, Reena S. Case study: clinical
governance as an approach to improve maternal and newborn health in 22 hospitals
in Indonesia. World Health and Population. 2015;16(2):16–23.
11. Phillips CB, Pearce CM, Hall S, Travaglia J, de Lusignan S, Love T et al. Can clinical
governance deliver quality improvement in Australian general practice and primary care?
A systematic review of the evidence. Medical Journal of Australia. 2010;193(10):602–7.
12. Peters DH, Noor AA, Singh LP, Kakar FK, Hansen PM, Burnham G. A balanced
scorecard for health services in Afghanistan. Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
2007;85(2):146– 51.
13. Edward A, Kumar B, Kakar F, Salehi AS, Burnham G, Peters DH. Configuring balanced
scorecards for measuring health system performance: evidence from 5 years’ evaluation
in Afghanistan. PLoS Medicine. 2011;8(7):e1001066.
14. Ssengooba F, McPake B, Palmer N. Why performance-based contracting failed in Uganda:
an “open-box” evaluation of a complex health system intervention. Social Science and
Medicine. 2012;75(2):377–83.
15. Soeters R, Habineza C, Peerenboom PB. Performance-based financing and changing the
district health system: experience from Rwanda. Bulletin of the World Health Organization.
2006;84(11):884–9.
16. Soeters R, Peerenboom PB, Mushagalusa P, Kimanuka C. Performance-based financing
experiment improved health care in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Health Affairs
(Millwood). 2011;30(8):1518–27.
17. Ashir GM, Doctor HV, Afenyadu GY. Performance based financing and uptake of maternal
and child health services in Yobe Sate, northern Nigeria. Global Journal of Health Science.
2013;5(3):34–41.
18. Leslie HH, Gage A, Nsona H, Hirschhorn LR, Kruk ME. Training and supervision did not
meaningfully improve quality of care for pregnant women or sick children in sub-Saharan
Africa. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2016;35(9):1716–24.
Annex
19. Rowe AK, Onikpo F, Lama M, Osterholt DM, Rowe SY, Deming S. A multifaceted
intervention to improve health worker adherence to integrated management of childhood
illness guidelines in Benin. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(5):837–46.
20. Rowe AK, Onikpo F, Lama M, Deming MS. The rise and fall of supervision in a project
designed to strengthen supervision of integrated management of childhood illness in
Benin. Health Policy and Planning. 2010;25(2):125–34.
21. Newton PN, Green MD, Fernández FM. Impact of poor-quality medicines in the
“developing” world. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2010;31(3):99–101.
22. Kafuko J. Rational drug use in rural health units of Uganda: effect of national standard
treatment guidelines on rational drug use. Geneva: World Health Organization, Essential
Medicines and Policy Department.
23. Gray A. Access to medicines and drug regulation in developing countries: a resource guide
for DFID. United Kingdom Department for International Development, Health Systems
Resource Centre; 2014.
24. Laing R, Hogerzeil HV, Ross-Degnan D. Ten recommendations to improve use of medicines
in developing countries. Health Policy and Planning. 2001;16(1):13–20.
25. Gershon RRM, Karkashian CD, Grosch JW, Murphy LR, Escamilla-Cejudo A, Flanagan PA
et al. Hospital safety climate and its relationship with safe work practices and workplace
exposure incidents. American Journal of Infection Control. 2000;28(3):211–21.
26. Ovretveit J. Formulating a health quality improvement strategy for a developing country.
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance Incorporating Leadership in Health
Services. 2004;17(7):368–76.
27. A guide to the implementation of the WHO multimodal hand hygiene improvement
strategy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
28. Friedman C, Newsom W, editors. IFIC basic concepts of infection control, 2nd edition.
Portadown, Northern Ireland: International Federation of Infection Control; 2011.
29. Core components for infection prevention and control programmes: report of the second
meeting, Informal Network on Infection Prevention and Control in Health Care, Geneva,
Switzerland, 26–27 June 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2009.
30. Raka L. Prevention and control of hospital-related infections in low- and middle-income
countries. Open Infectious Diseases Journal. 2010;4(1):125–31.
31. Budd A, Lukas S, Hogan U, Priscille K, Fann K, Hill P et al. A case study and the lessons
learned from in-house alcohol-based hand sanitizer production in a district hospital in
Rwanda. Journal of Service Science and Management. 2016;9:150–9.
32. Thi Anh Thu L, Thi Hong Thoa V, Thi Van Trang D, Phuc Tien N, Thuy Van D, Thi Kim Anh L
et al. Cost-effectiveness of a hand hygiene program on health care-associated infections in
intensive care patients at a tertiary care hospital in Vietnam. American Journal of Infection
Control. 2015;43(12):e93–9.
33. Allegranzi B, Pittet D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention.
Journal of Hospital Infection. 2009;73(4):305–15.
34. Allegranzi B, Sax H, Bengaly L, Richet H, Minta DK, Chraiti MN et al. Successful
implementation of the World Health Organization hand hygiene improvement strategy
in a referral hospital in Mali, Africa. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.
2010;31(2):133–41.
35. Mathur P. Hand hygiene: back to the basics of infection control. Indian Journal of Medical
Research. 2011;134(5):611–20.
36. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP et al. A surgical safety
checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England Journal
of Medicine. 2009;360(5):491–9.
96
37. Semel ME, Resch S, Haynes AB, Funk LM, Bader A, Berry WR et al. Adopting a surgical
safety checklist could save money and improve the quality of care in U.S. hospitals.
38. Aveling EL, McCulloch P, Dixon-Woods M. A qualitative study comparing experiences
of the surgical safety checklist in hospitals in high-income and low-income countries.
BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003039.
39. Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Ziewacz JE et al. Simulation-based
trial of surgical-crisis checklists. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(3):246–53.
40. Dixon-Woods M. The problem of context in quality improvement. Health Foundation; 2014.
41. Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, Federico F, Frankel T, Kimmel N et al. “Global trigger tool”
shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured.
42. Jha AK, Larizgoitia I, Audera-Lopez C, Prasopa-Plaizier N, Waters H, Bates DW. The global
burden of unsafe medical care: analytic modelling of observational studies. BMJ Quality
and Safety. 2013;22(10):809–15.
43. Ali MK, Shah S, Tandon N. Review of electronic decision-support tools for diabetes care:
a viable option for low- and middle-income countries? Journal of Diabetes Science and
Technology. 2011;5.
44. Raghu A, Praveen D, Peiris D, Tarassenko L, Clifford G. Engineering a mobile health tool
for resource-poor settings to assess and manage cardiovascular disease risk: SMARThealth
study. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2015;15(1):36.
45. Praveen D, Patel A, Raghu A, Clifford GD, Maulik PK, Mohammad Abdul A et al.
SMARTHealth India: development and field evaluation of a mobile clinical decision support
system for cardiovascular diseases in rural India. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2014;2(4):e54.
46. Kinsman L, Rotter T, James E, Snow P, Willis J. What is a clinical pathway? Development
of a definition to inform the debate. BMC Medicine. 2010;8:31.
47. Wolff AM, Taylor SA, McCabe JF. Using checklists and reminders in clinical pathways
to improve hospital inpatient care. Medical Journal of Australia. 2004;181(8):428–31.
48. Ozdas A, Speroff T, Waitman LR, Ozbolt J, Butler J, Miller RA. Integrating “best of care”
protocols into clinicians’ workflow via care provider order entry: impact on quality-of-care
indicators for acute myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Informatics
Association. 2006;13(2):188–96.
49. Jassal MS, Bishai WR. The epidemiology and challenges to the elimination of global
tuberculosis. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2010;50(Suppl 3):S156–S64.
50. Suharlim C. National TB guidelines implementation: challenges, deviations, and strategies.
2014.
51. Manchon-Walsh P, Borras JM, Espinas JA, Aliste L. Variability in the quality of rectal cancer
care in public hospitals in Catalonia (Spain): clinical audit as a basis for action. European
Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2011;37(4):325–33.
52. Nyamtema AS, de Jong AB, Urassa DP, van Roosmalen J. Using audit to enhance quality
of maternity care in resource limited countries: lessons learnt from rural Tanzania. BMC
Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2011;11(1):94.
53. Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline
adherence: Making feedback actionable. Implementation Science. 2006;1(1):9.
54. Hysong SJ, Teal CR, Khan MJ, Haidet P. Improving quality of care through improved audit
and feedback. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):45.
55. Higginson J, Walters R, Fulop N. Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource
for improving the governance of patient safety? BMJ Quality and Safety. 2012;21:7.
Annex
56. Schwarz D, Schwarz R, Gauchan B, Andrews J, Sharma R, Karelas G et al. Implementing

a systems-oriented morbidity and mortality conference in remote rural Nepal for quality
improvement. BMJ Quality and Safety. 2011;20(12):1082–8.
57. François P, Prate F, Vidal-Trecan G, Quaranta J-F, Labarere J, Sellier E. Characteristics of
morbidity and mortality conferences associated with the implementation of patient
safety improvement initiatives: an observational study. BMC Health Services Research.
2016;16(1):35.
58. Boushon B, Provost L, Gagnon J, Carver P. Using a virtual breakthrough series collaborative
to improve access in primary care. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.
2006;32(10):573–84.
59. Dellinger EP, Hausmann SM, Bratzler DW, Johnson RM, Daniel DM, Bunt KM et al.
Hospitals collaborate to decrease surgical site infections. American Journal of Surgery.
2005;190(1):9–15.
60. Flamm BL, Berwick DM, Kabcenell A. Reducing cesarean section rates safely: lessons from
a “breakthrough series” collaborative. Birth. 1998;25(2):117–24.
61. Linnander E, McNatt Z, Sipsma H, Tatek D, Abebe Y, Endeshaw A et al. Use of a national
collaborative to improve hospital quality in a low-income setting. International Health.
2016;8(2):148–53.
62. Franco LM, Marquez L. Effectiveness of collaborative improvement: evidence from
27 applications in 12 less-developed and middle-income countries. BMJ Quality and Safety.
2011;20(8):658–65.
63. Community involvement in health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
64. Fallah M, Dahn B, Nyenswah TG, Massaquoi M, Skrip LA, Yamin D et al. Interrupting Ebola
transmission in Liberia through community-based initiatives. Annals of Internal Medicine.
2016;164(5):367–9.
65. Sampson UK, Amuyunzu-Nyamongo M, Mensah GA. Health promotion and cardiovascular
disease prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases.
2013;56(3):344–55.
66. Kutcher S, Gilberds H, Morgan C, Greene R, Hamwaka K, Perkins K. Improving Malawian
teachers’ mental health knowledge and attitudes: an integrated school mental health
literacy approach. Global Mental Health. 2015;2(10).
67. Johri M, Subramanian SV, Sylvestre M-P, Dudeja S, Chandra D, Koné GK et al. Association
between maternal health literacy and child vaccination in India: a cross-sectional study.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2015; 69(9):849–57.
68. Chandra-Mouli V, McCarraher DR, Phillips SJ, Williamson NE, Hainsworth G. Contraception
for adolescents in low- and middle-income countries: needs, barriers, and access.
Reproductive Health. 2014;11(1):1.
69. Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making.
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 1997;2(2):112–21.
70. Merten S, Kenter E, McKenzie O, Musheke M, Ntalasha H, Martin-Hilber A. Patient-
reported barriers and drivers of adherence to antiretrovirals in sub-Saharan Africa:
a meta‑ethnography. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2010;15(Suppl 1):16–33.
71. Roy M, Czaicki N, Holmes C, Chavan S, Tsitsi A, Odeny T et al. Understanding sustained
retention in HIV/AIDS care and treatment: a synthetic review. Current HIV/AIDS Reports.
2016;13(3):177–85.
72. Bateganya MH, Amanyeiwe U, Roxo U, Dong M. Impact of support groups for people
living with HIV on clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Journal
of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2015;68(Suppl 3):S368–74.
73. Gupta N, Bukhman G. Leveraging the lessons learned from HIV/AIDS for coordinated
chronic care delivery in resource-poor settings. Healthcare. 2015;3(4):215–20.
98
74. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient
experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3:1–18.
75. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM. Patients’ perception of hospital care in
the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(18):1921–31.
76. Glickman SW, Boulding W, Manary M, Staelin R, Roe MT, Wolosin RJ et al. Patient
satisfaction and its relationship with clinical quality and inpatient mortality in acute
myocardial infarction. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2010;3:188–95.
77. Gilson L, Alilio M, Heggenhougen K. Community satisfaction with primary health care
services: an evaluation undertaken in the Morogoro region of Tanzania. Social Science
and Medicine. 1994;39(6):767–80.
78. Das J, Holla A, Mohpal A, Muralidharan K. Quality and accountability in healthcare
delivery: audit-study evidence from primary care in India. American Economic Review.
2013;106(12):3765–99.
79. Esterson YB, Carey M, Piette JD, Thomas N, Hawkins M. A systematic review of innovative
diabetes care models in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Journal of Health Care
for the Poor and Underserved. 2014;25(1):72–93.
80. Klonoff DC, Schwartz DM. An economic analysis of interventions for diabetes. Diabetes
Care. 2000;23(3):390–404.
81. Debussche X, Balcou-Debussche M, Besançon S, Traore SA. Challenges to diabetes
self‑management in developing countries. Diabetes Voice. 2009;54.
82. Oortwijn W, van der Wilt GJ. Challenges in contemporary health technology assessment:
a view from the outside. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.
2016;32(1–2):1–2.
83. Kennedy-Martin T, Mitchell BD, Boye KS, Chen W, Curtis BH, Flynn JA et al. The health
technology assessment environment in mainland China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan:
implications for the evaluation of diabetes mellitus therapies. Value in Health Regional
Issues. 2014;3:108–16.
84. Pettersson B, Hoffmann M, Wandell P, Levin LA. Utilization and costs of lipid modifying
therapies following health technology assessment for the new reimbursement scheme
in Sweden. Health Policy. 2012;104(1):84–91.
85. Mohara A, Youngkong S, Velasco RP, Werayingyong P, Pachanee K, Prakongsai P et al.
Using health technology assessment for informing coverage decisions in Thailand.
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2012;1(2):137–46.
86. Implementation of the universal access with explicit guarantee (AUGE) reform: Chile case
study. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
87. Kosherbayeva L, Hailey D, Kurakbaev K, Tsoy A, Zhuzzhanov O, Donbay A et al.
Implementation of health technology assessment work in a hospital in Kazakhstan.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2016;32(1–2):78–80.
88. O’Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment:
lessons learned from around the world – an overview. Value in Health. 2009;12:S1–S5.
World Health Organization The World Bank Organisation for Economic
Co‑operation and Development
20 Avenue Appia 1818 H Street NW
(OECD)
1211 Genève 27 Washington, DC 20433
Switzerland United States of America 2, rue André Pascal
75775 Paris
Please visit us at: Please visit us at:
France
www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety www.worldbank.org/health
Please visit us at:
www.oecd.org/health
© A-Digit / iStock
ISBN 9789241513906

WHO WB Quality Health Services-Eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHO WB Quality Health Services-Eng

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHO WB Quality Health Services-Eng

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the document about?

What is the document about?

What are some challenges mentioned regarding delivering quality health services?

What are some challenges mentioned regarding delivering quality health services?

Delivering quality

© World Health Organization, OECD, and

Icons designed by Freepik, from www.flaticon.com

Chapter 1 Background: striving for quality in health care services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Chapter 2 About this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Chapter 3 Global state of health care quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter 4 Building quality into the foundations of health systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 5 Understanding levers to improve quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Chapter 6 The quality call to action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Annex: Improvement interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 4.1 Global density and distribution of skilled health professionals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Jim Yong Kim Angel Gurría

Claire Kilpatrick, Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Angela Lashoher, Agnès Leotsakos,

BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES THROUGH IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY

BUILDING QUALITY MECHANISMS INTO THE FOUNDATIONS

of systems, governments, policy-makers, health system leaders, patients and clinicians

• ensure a high-quality health workforce;

INTERVENTIONS TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF CARE

• changing clinical practice at the front line;

SHARING OF LESSONS LEARNED FOR SCALE-UP OF SUCCESSFUL

All governments should:

All health care workers should:

Universal health coverage is an important and noble objective. Enshrined in the

1.1 WIDESPREAD EVIDENCE OF POOR QUALITY IN ALL COUNTRIES

1.2 THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT FOR GOOD QUALITY

1.3 QUALITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF UNIVERSAL

Transparency is paramount. It is the bedrock of continuous learning and improvement.

1.4 AFFORDABILITY OF QUALITY FOR ALL COUNTRIES

Image on previous page: © Rawpixel / iStock

Recognizing the global gap in understanding, measuring and improving quality of

• to provide governments with a description of the quality of health services and

• Chapter 4: Building quality into the foundations of health systems. This

• Chapter 5: Understanding levers to improve quality. Quality is a complex

3.1 THE QUALITY IMPERATIVE FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH

Figure 3.1 Median under-5 mortality across dimensions of inequality, 2005–2012*

* Median value of 49 selected countries

Systematic assessments of essential health services in high-mortality countries revealed

Box 3.1 Liberia: embedding quality in the post-Ebola health agenda

3.2 DEFINING QUALITY OF CARE

Source: Institute of Medicine (32).

• High-quality care for Fatima is people-centred, that is, it respects and

3.3 GLOBAL PICTURE OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY

3.3.1 Are health services effective?

Figure 3.3 Number of clinical vignettes correctly diagnosed by Kenyan providers

3.3.2 Are health services safe?

Figure 3.4 Burden of disease caused by adverse events, 2015

Low income 38%

Lower middle income

Note: Percentage of average DALYs/country.

3.3.3 Are health services people-centred?

0 20 40 60 80 100 Age-standardized rates

Note: 95% confidence intervals represented by .

3.3.4 Are health services timely?

Figure 3.6 Trends in average waiting times for hip replacement

Source: Health at a glance 2017 (2).

3.3.5 Are health services equitable?