Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30075772›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Implementation of district-based clinical specialist teams in South Africa: Analysing a new role in a transforming system.

Kafayat Oboirien, Bronwyn Harris, Jane Goudge, John Eyles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Towards national health insurance: Alignment of strategic human resources in South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2019
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kafayat OboirienCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa. Kafayat.oboirien@wits.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0003-0469-6431
Bronwyn HarrisCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Jane GoudgeCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
John EylesCentre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving the quality of health care is a national priority in many countries to help reduce unacceptable levels of variation in health system practices, performance and outcomes. In 2012, South Africa introduced district-based clinical specialist teams (DCSTs) to enhance clinical governance at the lowest level of the health system. This paper examines the expectations and responses of local health system actors in the introduction and early implementation of this new DCST role.

methodsBetween 2013 and 2015, we carried out 258 in-depth interviews and three focus group discussions with managers, implementers and intended beneficiaries of the DCST innovation. Data were collected in three districts using a theory of change approach for programme evaluation. We also embarked on role charting through policy document review. Guided by role theory, we analysed data thematically and compared findings across the three districts.

resultsWe found role ambiguity and conflict in the implementation of the new DCST role. Individual, organisational and systemic factors influenced actors' expectations, behaviours, and adjustments to the new clinical governance role. Local contextual factors affected the composition and scope of DCSTs in each site, while leadership and accountability pathways shaped system adaptiveness across all three. Two key contributions emerge; firstly, the responsiveness of the system to an innovation requires time in planning, roll-out, phasing, and monitoring. Secondly, the interconnectedness of quality improvement processes adds complexity to innovation in clinical governance and may influence the (in) effectiveness of service delivery.

conclusionRole ambiguity and conflict in the DCST role at a system-wide level suggests the need for effective management of implementation systems. Additionally, improving quality requires anticipating and addressing a shortage of inputs, including financing for additional staff and skills for health care delivery and careful integration of health care policy guidelines.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamProfessional RoleQuality ImprovementDelivery of Health CareFocus GroupsHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicLeadershipProgram EvaluationSouth AfricaAdaptationClinical governanceDCST(s)ImplementationQuality improvement teamsRoleSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID30075772
PMCPMC6091061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.