Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Development of a tool for assessing quality of comprehensive care provided by community health workers in a community-based care programme in South Africa
  1. Frances Griffiths1,2,
  2. Olukemi Babalola2,
  3. Celia Brown1,
  4. Julia de Kadt2,
  5. Hlologelo Malatji2,
  6. Margaret Thorogood1,2,
  7. Yu-hwei Tseng2,
  8. Jane Goudge2
  1. 1 University of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK
  2. 2 Centre for Health Policy, University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences, Johannesburg, South Africa
  1. Correspondence to Professor Frances Griffiths; f.e.griffiths{at}warwick.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To develop a tool for use by non-clinical fieldworkers for assessing the quality of care delivered by community health workers providing comprehensive care in households in low- and middle-income countries.

Design We determined the content of the tool using multiple sources of information, including interactions with district managers, national training manuals and an exploratory study that included observations of 70 community health workers undertaking 518 household visits collected as part of a wider study. We also reviewed relevant literature, selecting relevant domains and quality markers. To refine the tool and manual we worked with the fieldworkers who had undertaken the observations. We constructed two scores summarising key aspects of care: (1) delivering messages and actions during household visit, and (2) communicating with the household; we also collected contextual data. The fieldworkers used the tool with community health workers in a different area to test feasibility.

Setting South Africa, where community health workers have been brought into the public health system to address the shortage of healthcare workers and limited access to healthcare. It was embedded in an intervention study to improve quality of community health worker supervision.

Primary and secondary outcomes Our primary outcome was the completion of a tool and user manual.

Results The tool consists of four sections, completed at different stages during community health worker household visits: before setting out, at entry to a household, during the household visit and after leaving the household. Following tool refinement, we found no problems on field-testing the tool.

Conclusions We have developed a tool for assessing quality of care delivered by community health workers at home visits, often an unobserved part of their role. The tool was developed for evaluating an intervention but could also be used to support training and management of community health workers.

  • primary care
  • community care
  • community health workers
  • quality of care
  • assessment

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors JG, FG and Thorogood designed the research and supervised the data collection used to inform development of the assessment tool. HM and JdK supervised and undertook data collection. FG, Goudge, MT, HM, JdK, OB and Y-hT contributed to data analysis. FG led the tool development process and JG, MT, HM, JdK, OB and CB contributed. FG drafted the manuscript and JG, MT, HM, JdK, OB, CB and Y-hT contributed substantially to the paper.

  • Funding This work was funded by Medical Research Council grant number MR/N015908/1.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Written consent was obtained from all participants.

  • Ethics approval Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical), University of the Witwatersrand M160354 Biomedical and Scientific Research Ethics Sub-Committee, University of Warwick REGO-2016-1825.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement No additional data are available.