An integrated hospital-district performance evaluation for communicable diseases in low-and middle-income countries: Evidence from a pilot in three sub-Saharan countries

by Lara Tavoschi, Paolo Belardi, Sara Mazzilli, Fabio Manenti, Giampietro Pellizzer, Desalegn Abebe, Gaetano Azzimonti, John Bosco Nsubuga, Giovanni Dall’Oglio, Milena Vainieri

Introduction

The last two decades saw an extensive effort to design, develop and implement integrated and multidimensional healthcare evaluation systems in high-income countries. However, in low- and middle-income countries, few experiences of such systems implementation have been reported in the scientific literature. We developed and piloted an innovative evaluation tool to assess the performance of health services provision for communicable diseases in three sub-Saharan African countries.

Material and methods

A total of 42 indicators, 14 per each communicable disease care pathway, were developed. A sub-set of 23 indicators was included in the evaluation process. The communicable diseases care pathways were developed for Tuberculosis, Gastroenteritis, and HIV/AIDS, including indicators grouped in four care phases: prevention (or screening), diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. All indicators were calculated for the period 2017–2019, while performance evaluation was performed for the year 2019. The analysis involved four health districts and their relative hospitals in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Uganda.

Results

Substantial variability was observed over time and across the four different districts. In the Tuberculosis pathway, the majority of indicators scored below the standards and below-average performance was mainly reported for prevention and diagnosis phases. Along the Gastroenteritis pathway, excellent performance was instead evaluated for most indicators and the highest scores were reported in prevention and treatment phases. The HIV/AIDS pathway indicators related to screening and outcome phases were below the average score, while good or excellent performance was registered within the treatment phase.

Conclusions

The bottom-up approach and stakeholders’ engagement increased local ownership of the process and the likelihood that findings will inform health services performance and quality of care. Despite the intrinsic limitations of data sources, this framework may contribute to promoting good governance, performance evaluation, outcomes measurement and accountability in settings characterised by multiple healthcare service providers.