Faculty Bibliography

Trauma is pervasive in the USA, but disproportionately present in individuals and communities burdened by poverty, violence, and exposure to the criminal justice system. Engagement in clinical care, especially community-based primary care, is particularly important in the immediate period following community reentry from incarceration, where opportunities to engage clients in services are essential for improved health and reduced recidivism. Trauma-informed care offers an important and innovative opportunity for healthcare systems and primary care providers to improve quality of care and the patient experience, thereby increasing longitudinal engagement of marginalized and hard-to-reach patient populations like persons with criminal justice system exposure. Trauma-informed care implementation includes educating providers and transforming practices to incorporate safety, trust, peer support, collaboration, empowerment, and cultural perspectives into everyday operations and care delivery. While comprehensive trauma-informed care involves transformation on a system level, trauma-informed approaches can also be adopted by the individual provider to improve the clinical consultation. By recognizing the role of trauma and its impact on an individual's physical, emotional, and behavioral health, providers and clients can build mutual trust, focus on individual growth, and begin to foster healing.

Primary health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income settings (LMIC) often work in challenging conditions in remote, rural areas, in isolation from the rest of the health system and particularly specialist care. Much attention has been given to implementation of interventions to support quality and performance improvement for workers in such settings. However, little is known about the design of such initiatives and which approaches predominate, let alone those that are most effective. We aimed for a broad understanding of what distinguishes different approaches to primary HCW support and performance improvement and to clarify the existing evidence as well as gaps in evidence in order to inform decision-making and design of programs intended to support and improve the performance of health workers in these settings. We systematically searched the literature for articles addressing this topic, and undertook a comparative review to document the principal approaches to performance and quality improvement for primary HCWs in LMIC settings. We identified 40 eligible papers reporting on interventions that we categorized into five different approaches: (1) supervision and supportive supervision; (2) mentoring; (3) tools and aids; (4) quality improvement methods, and (5) coaching. The variety of study designs and quality/performance indicators precluded a formal quantitative data synthesis. The most extensive literature was on supervision, but there was little clarity on what defines the most effective approach to the supervision activities themselves, let alone the design and implementation of supervision programs. The mentoring literature was limited, and largely focused on clinical skills building and educational strategies. Further research on how best to incorporate mentorship into pre-service clinical training, while maintaining its function within the routine health system, is needed. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about coaching in this setting, however a review of the corporate and the business school literature is warranted to identify transferrable approaches. A substantial literature exists on tools, but significant variation in approaches makes comparison challenging. We found examples of effective individual projects and designs in specific settings, but there was a lack of comparative research on tools across approaches or across settings, and no systematic analysis within specific approaches to provide evidence with clear generalizability. Future research should prioritize comparative intervention trials to establish clear global standards for performance and quality improvement initiatives. Such standards will be critical to creating and sustaining a well-functioning health workforce and for global initiatives such as universal health coverage.

BACKGROUND:The wide availability and relative simplicity of mobile phones make them a promising instrument for delivering a variety of health-related interventions. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions have been tested in a variety of health delivery areas, but research has been restricted to pilot and small studies with limited generalizability. The aim of this review was to explore the current evidence on the use of mHealth for maternal health interventions in low- and low middle-income countries. METHODS:Peer-reviewed papers were identified from Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library via a combination of search terms. Quantitative or mixed-methods papers published in the English language between January 2000 and July 2015 were included. RESULTS:Three hundred and seventy papers were found in the literature search. We assessed the full text of 57 studies, and included 19 in the review. Study designs included were 5 randomized controlled trials, 9 before and after comparisons, 1 study with endline assessment only, 3 postintervention assessments, and 1 cohort study. Quality assessment elucidated 9 low-quality, 5 moderate, and 5 high studies. Five studies supported the use of mobile phones for data collection, 3 for appointment reminders, and 4 for both appointment reminders and health promotion. Six studies supported the use of mHealth for provider-to-provider communication and 1 for clinical management. CONCLUSIONS:Studies demonstrated promise for the use of mHealth in maternal health; however, much of the evidence came from low- and moderate-quality studies. Pilot and small programs require more rigorous testing before allocating resources to scaling up this technology.

BACKGROUND:Surgical services in low- and middle income countries (LMICs) must be considered within the context of a coordinated strategy for building primary care systems. Weak front-line primary care systems lead to delayed presentation and poor follow-up of patients with surgical illness, increasing the risk of poor outcomes. METHODS:Here we propose a framework to integrating surgery and primary care, organized around basic primary care principles of access, longitudinal care, coordination, integration and equity. RESULTS:Making surgical care accessible will require frontline provider capacity to screen for and recognize common surgical conditions, as well as to deliver certain basic surgical services themselves. Making this care effective will require strengthening the capacity of interdisciplinary teams to provide longitudinal care, involving coordinated networks for referral, communication with and mentorship by more specialized providers, and postoperative follow-up. Innovative approaches to information and communication technology can help to overcome the transportation and infrastructure barriers that jeopardize both access and effectiveness. Explicit integration of surgical and primary care programs at the managerial and administrative levels, as well as at the point-of-care, will also be critical. Taking a pro-equity approach can ensure that populations with the greatest unmet needs are effectively reached. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Utilizing the pillars of effective primary care as a guiding framework to design, implement, and scale surgical programs in LMICs offers an opportunity for strengthening and enhancing the quality of health systems as a whole.

BACKGROUND:More than three decades after the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata enshrined the goal of 'health for all', high-quality primary care services remain undelivered to the great majority of the world's poor. This failure to effectively reach the most vulnerable populations has been, in part, a failure to develop and implement appropriate and effective primary care delivery models. This paper examines a root cause of these failures, namely that the inability to achieve clear and practical consensus around the scope and aims of primary care may be contributing to ongoing operational inertia. The present work also examines integrated models of care as a strategy to move beyond conceptual dissonance in primary care and toward implementation. Finally, this paper examines the strengths and weaknesses of a particular model, the World Health Organization's Integrated Management of Adolescent and Adult Illness (IMAI), and its potential as a guidepost toward improving the quality of primary care delivery in poor settings. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Integration and integrated care may be an important approach in establishing a new paradigm of primary care delivery, though overall, current evidence is mixed. However, a number of successful specific examples illustrate the potential for clinical and service integration to positively impact patient care in primary care settings. One example deserving of further examination is the IMAI, developed by the World Health Organization as an operational model that integrates discrete vertical interventions into a comprehensive delivery system encompassing triage and screening, basic acute and chronic disease care, basic prevention and treatment services, and follow-up and referral guidelines. IMAI is an integrated model delivered at a single point-of-care using a standard approach to each patient based on the universal patient history and physical examination. The evidence base on IMAI is currently weak, but whether or not IMAI itself ultimately proves useful in advancing primary care delivery, it is these principles that should serve as the basis for developing a standard of integrated primary care delivery for adults and adolescents that can serve as the foundation for ongoing quality improvement. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:As integrated primary care is the standard of care in the developed world, so too must we move toward implementing integrated models of primary care delivery in poorer settings. Models such as IMAI are an important first step in this evolution. A robust and sustained commitment to innovation, research and quality improvement will be required if integrated primary care delivery is to become a reality in developing world.

BACKGROUND:As resource-limited health systems evolve to address complex diseases, attention must be returned to basic primary care delivery. Limited data exists detailing the quality of general adult and adolescent primary care delivered at front-line facilities in these regions. Here we describe the baseline quality of care for adults and adolescents in rural Rwanda. METHODS:Patients aged 13 and older presenting to eight rural health center outpatient departments in one district in southeastern Rwanda between February and March 2011 were included. Routine nurse-delivered care was observed by clinical mentors trained in the WHO Integrated Management of Adolescent & Adult Illness (IMAI) protocol using standardized checklists, and compared to decisions made by the clinical mentor as the gold standard. RESULTS:Four hundred and seventy consultations were observed. Of these, only 1.5% were screened and triaged for emergency conditions. Fewer than 10% of patients were routinely screened for chronic conditions including HIV, tuberculosis, anemia or malnutrition. Nurses correctly diagnosed 50.1% of patient complaints (95% CI: 45.7%-54.5%) and determined the correct treatment 44.9% of the time (95% CI: 40.6%-49.3%). Correct diagnosis and treatment varied significantly across health centers (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Fundamental gaps exist in adult and adolescent primary care delivery in Rwanda, including triage, screening, diagnosis, and treatment, with significant variability across conditions and facilities. Research and innovation toward improving and standardizing primary care delivery in sub-Saharan Africa is required. IMAI, supported by routine mentorship, is one potentially important approach to establishing the standards necessary for high-quality care.

SETTING/METHODS:Primary health centre in the highlands of Lesotho. BACKGROUND:There is limited information about the relative frequencies of common respiratory illnesses in resource-limited settings, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. OBJECTIVE:To examine whether the distribution of respiratory illnesses in this region is unique due to the high prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection. DESIGN/METHODS:In a prospective, cross-sectional study of adults and adolescents with cough or difficulty breathing recruited from the waiting areas of the health centre, the primary outcome was the respiratory diagnosis for each participant, which was based on history, physical examination, response to antibiotics and the results of chest radiography (CXR) and sputum examinations. RESULTS:Acute respiratory infections accounted for 65% of all diagnoses among 696 patients who were evaluated by a clinician and CXR. Pneumonia accounted for 10% of all diagnoses, and confirmed or probable tuberculosis (TB) accounted for 13%. Chronic respiratory conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, silicosis and old TB, accounted for 14% of all diagnoses. Excluding 61 patients with an uninterpretable CXR, 36% (228) of the participants had significant pathology on CXR. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A high proportion of patients presenting to a primary health centre in Lesotho with routine respiratory complaints have serious respiratory illnesses.