ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Rapid review of the ideal clinic realisation and maintenance programme among primary healthcare providers in the Gauteng Province, South Africa.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ideal clinic realisation and maintenance (ICRM) programme in South Africa aims to elevate primary healthcare clinic (PHC) service quality in preparation for the National Health Insurance rollout. This study investigated ICRM implementation from clinic workers' and patients' experiences in the Gauteng province.
methodsA mixed-methods cross-sectional survey was conducted across 45 Gauteng PHCs. Anonymous semistructured interviews with 335 clinic staff explored their knowledge and experiences with the ICRM programme. Facility assessments captured structural factors impacting ICRM implementation. Log-binomial regression was used to assess factors related to confidence in ICRM implementation and improvements in ICRM certification, and thematic analysis examined patient and staff experiences.
resultsWhile 86.9% of clinical/management staff (95% CI 75.1 to 93.6) reported understanding ICRM, only 41.9% (95% CI 32.6 to 53.0) could cite specific guidelines. Enablers included guideline training (reported by 47.9% of staff, 95% CI 39.6 to 56.3) and support from district teams (44.6%, 95% CI 36.6 to 52.8). Barriers included facility size (32.9%, 95% CI 25.7 to 40.9) and infrastructure challenges (28.4%, 95% CI 21.6 to 36.2). Staff confidence in ICRM implementation was moderate (63.1%, 95% CI 56.1 to 69.6), higher when ICRM champions were present (relative risk ratio (RRR) 2.3 vs not present, 95% CI 1.0 to 5.2), guidelines were clear to staff (RRR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1 to 5.0) and sufficient training was perceived (RRR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.3). From 2018 to 2021, 60.3% of facilities (95% CI 43.8 to 74.8) improved in ICRM classification. Compared with facilities with no status change, staff from clinics with downgraded stats were less likely to report clear guidelines (RRR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) to identify an ICRM champion (RRR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.7) or have a knowledgeable manager (RRR 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.3).
conclusionChallenges in ICRM implementation persist. Staff knowledge, training and district support play significant roles, while clear guidelines, sufficient resources and effective leadership are essential for sustaining and enhancing ICRM performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.