Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.
METHODS: Ten focus group discussions were held with opinion leaders (chiefs, elders, assemblymen, leaders of women groups) and 16 in-depth interviews were conducted with healthcare workers (District Directors of Health, Medical Assistants in-charge of health centres, and district Public Health Nurses and Midwives). The interviews and discussions were audio recorded, transcribed into English and imported into NVivo 10 for content analysis.
RESULTS: As heads of the family, men control resources, consult soothsayers to determine the health seeking or treatment for pregnant women, and serve as the final authority on where and when pregnant women should seek medical care. Beyond that, they have no expectation of any further role during antenatal care and therefore find it unnecessary to attend clinics with their partners. There were conflicting views about whether men needed to provide any extra support to their pregnant partners within the home. Health workers generally agreed that men provided little or no support to their partners. Although health workers had facilitated the formation of father support groups, there was little evidence of any impact on antenatal support.
CONCLUSIONS: In patriarchal settings, the role of men can be complex and social and cultural traditions may conflict with public health recommendations. Initiatives to promote male involvement should focus on young men and use chiefs and opinion leaders as advocates to re-orient men towards more proactive involvement in ensuring the health of their partners.
METHODS: Prospective, mixed-methods process evaluation to answer the following: (1) how was the collaborative delivered by the faculty and received, understood and enacted by the participants; (2) what influenced teams' ability to improve care for patients requiring emergency cholecystectomy? We collected and analysed a range of data including field notes, ethnographic observations of meetings, and project documentation. Analysis was based on the framework approach, informed by Normalisation Process Theory, and involved the creation of comparative case studies based on hospital performance during the project.
RESULTS: Chole-QuIC was delivered as planned and was well received and understood by participants. Four hospitals were identified as highly successful, based upon a substantial increase in the number of patients having surgery in line with national guidance. Conversely, four hospitals were identified as challenged, achieving no significant improvement. The comparative analysis indicate that six inter-related influences appeared most associated with improvement: (1) achieving clarity of purpose amongst site leads and key stakeholders; (2) capacity to lead and effective project support; (3) ideas to action; (4) learning from own and others' experience; (5) creating additional capacity to do emergency cholecystectomies; and (6) coordinating/managing the patient pathway.
CONCLUSION: Collaborative-based quality improvement is a viable strategy for emergency surgery but success requires the deployment of effective clinical strategies in conjunction with improvement strategies. In particular, achieving clarity of purpose about proposed changes amongst key stakeholders was a vital precursor to improvement, enabling the creation of additional surgical capacity and new pathways to be implemented effectively. Protected time, testing ideas, and the ability to learn quickly from data and experience were associated with greater impact within this cohort.
Method: In this cross-sectional observational study in Punjab, an instrument of the measure was developed based on health care facility characteristics and ASPs after an extensive literature review. The questionnaire was circulated by mail or through drop off surveys to medical superintendents or directors/heads of pharmacy departments of hospitals.
Results: Out of 254, a total of 137 hospitals fully completed the questionnaire - 11 primary, 65 secondary, 46 tertiary and 15 specialized hospitals. The use of antimicrobial prescribing guidelines (68.7%), provision of infectious diseases consultation services (66.4%), clinical pharmacy service (65.7%), use of drug and therapeutics committees to approve antimicrobial prescribing (65.5%), regular audit by doctors on antimicrobial prescribing (54.1%) and use of a restricted formulary for antimicrobial (50.4%) were the most common ASPs. However, most of these activities were only somewhat or moderately successful. Whereas, electronic antimicrobial prescribing approval systems (15.3%), using a sticker to notify prescribers regarding the need to obtain approval for the antimicrobial prescribed (16.1%) and participation in the national antimicrobial utilization surveillance program (19.7%) were only seen in a few hospitals.
Conclusion: Study inferred that there are inadequate ASPs in the hospitals of Pakistan. A multidisciplinary approach, clinical leadership and availability of motivated and trained individuals are essential elements for the success of future ASPs.