Decentralising DR-TB care: the trade-off between quality of care and service coverage in the early phase of implementation.

IF 1.6 Q4 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Public Health Action Pub Date : 2025-09-03 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.5588/pha.25.0004
W Jassat, M Moshabela, M P Nicol, L Dickson, H Cox, K Mlisana, J Black, M Loveday, A D Grant, K Kielmann, H Schneider
{"title":"Decentralising DR-TB care: the trade-off between quality of care and service coverage in the early phase of implementation.","authors":"W Jassat, M Moshabela, M P Nicol, L Dickson, H Cox, K Mlisana, J Black, M Loveday, A D Grant, K Kielmann, H Schneider","doi":"10.5588/pha.25.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A policy of decentralised care for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) was introduced in South Africa in 2011. We describe a trade-off between increasing coverage of services and poor quality of care, in the early phase of policy implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a mixed methods case study, comparing implementation in KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape provinces; with interviews and quantitative analysis of routine DR-TB programme data. We analysed qualitative data, thematically organizing findings into inputs, processes, and outputs to explore how decentralisation influenced quality of DR-TB care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Decentralisation of DR-TB care expanded access across provinces but there was wide variation in pace, planning and structural readiness. Where rapid scale-up outpaced capacity-building, weaknesses in resourcing, workforce, and clinical governance compromised quality of care. Two illustrative examples highlight that decentralisation to inadequately resourced sites resulted in morbidity to patients who did not receive effective monitoring for adverse events; and decentralising services to inadequately capacitated clinicians resulted in incorrect initiation in more complex cases and late referral of clinical complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Attempts to decentralise DR-TB treatment in the context of complex treatment algorithms and limited health system capacity resulted in trade-offs of care quality. We argue that quality of care should be an essential consideration in early implementation of health programmes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46239,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Action","volume":"15 3","pages":"97-102"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12421840/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Action","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.25.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A policy of decentralised care for drug-resistant TB (DR-TB) was introduced in South Africa in 2011. We describe a trade-off between increasing coverage of services and poor quality of care, in the early phase of policy implementation.

Methods: This was a mixed methods case study, comparing implementation in KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape provinces; with interviews and quantitative analysis of routine DR-TB programme data. We analysed qualitative data, thematically organizing findings into inputs, processes, and outputs to explore how decentralisation influenced quality of DR-TB care.

Results: Decentralisation of DR-TB care expanded access across provinces but there was wide variation in pace, planning and structural readiness. Where rapid scale-up outpaced capacity-building, weaknesses in resourcing, workforce, and clinical governance compromised quality of care. Two illustrative examples highlight that decentralisation to inadequately resourced sites resulted in morbidity to patients who did not receive effective monitoring for adverse events; and decentralising services to inadequately capacitated clinicians resulted in incorrect initiation in more complex cases and late referral of clinical complications.

Conclusions: Attempts to decentralise DR-TB treatment in the context of complex treatment algorithms and limited health system capacity resulted in trade-offs of care quality. We argue that quality of care should be an essential consideration in early implementation of health programmes.

Abstract Image

分散耐药结核病治疗:早期实施阶段护理质量与服务覆盖之间的权衡。
背景:2011年,南非推行了一项分散治疗耐药结核病(DR-TB)的政策。我们描述了在政策实施的早期阶段,服务覆盖面扩大与护理质量低下之间的权衡关系。方法:这是一项混合方法案例研究,比较夸祖鲁-纳塔尔省和西开普省的实施情况;对常规耐药结核病规划数据进行访谈和定量分析。我们分析了定性数据,按主题将研究结果组织为投入、过程和产出,以探索权力下放如何影响耐药结核病治疗的质量。结果:耐药结核病护理的分散化扩大了各省的可及性,但在速度、规划和结构准备方面存在很大差异。在迅速扩大规模超过能力建设的地方,资源、劳动力和临床治理方面的弱点影响了护理质量。两个说明性的例子强调,将权力下放到资源不足的地方导致没有得到有效监测不良事件的患者发病;将服务分散给能力不足的临床医生,导致更复杂病例的错误开始和临床并发症的延迟转诊。结论:在复杂的治疗算法和有限的卫生系统能力的背景下,分散耐药结核病治疗的尝试导致了护理质量的权衡。我们认为,在早期实施保健方案时,护理质量应是一个基本考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health Action
Public Health Action RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Launched on 1 May 2011, Public Health Action (PHA) is an official publication of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (The Union). It is an open access, online journal available world-wide to physicians, health workers, researchers, professors, students and decision-makers, including public health centres, medical, university and pharmaceutical libraries, hospitals, clinics, foundations and institutions. PHA is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that actively encourages, communicates and reports new knowledge, dialogue and controversy in health systems and services for people in vulnerable and resource-limited communities — all topics that reflect the mission of The Union, Health solutions for the poor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信