Michael Schriver

Background: Skill-mix imbalance is a global concern for primary healthcare in low-income countries. In Rwanda, primary healthcare facilities (health centres, HCs) are predominantly led by nurses. They have to diagnose a multitude of health complaints. Whether they feel capable of undertaking this responsibility has yet to be explored.Aim: This study explored how healthcare providers (HPs) at Rwandan HCs perceived their capability in the diagnostic practice.Setting: Rural and urban HCs in Muhanga district, Rwanda.Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with nurses and clinical officers, and observations of consultations were made. Findings were analysed thematically.Results: Rwandan HPs were confident in their competences to perform diagnostic procedures although nurses felt that the responsibilities lay beyond their professional training. Clinical officers believed that their professional training prepared them to function competently and autonomously in the diagnostic practice, although all HPs experienced a high dependency on medical history taking, physical examination and laboratory tests for reaching a diagnosis. Resource constraints (time, rooms and laboratory tests) were seen as a barrier to perform diagnostic tasks optimally, and HPs experienced in-service training and supervision as insufficient. They increased their diagnostic competences through work experience, self-learning and supportive peer collaboration.Conclusion: Clinical officers perceived themselves as capable in the diagnostic practice. Nurses may compensate for insufficient school training through in-service learning opportunities and feel capable in the diagnostic practice. Formative mentorship schemes and tailored education may prove valuable, but further research on how to improve HPs’ diagnostic capability in Rwanda’s primary healthcare sector is needed.

External supervision of primary healthcare facilities in low- and middle-income countries often has a managerial main purpose in which the role of support for professional development is unclear. To explore how Rwandan primary healthcare supervisors and providers (supervisees) perceive evaluative and formative functions of external supervision. Qualitative, exploratory study. Focus group discussions: three with supervisors, three with providers, and one mixed (n = 31). Findings were discussed with individual and groups of supervisors and providers. Evaluative activities occupied providers’ understanding of supervision, including checking, correcting, marking and performance-based financing. These were presented as sources of motivation, that in self-determination theory indicate introjected regulation. Supervisors preferred to highlight their role in formative supervision, which may mask their own and providers’ uncontested accounts that systematic performance evaluations predominated supervisors’ work. Providers strongly requested larger focus on formative and supportive functions, voiced as well by most supervisors. Impact of performance evaluation on motivation and professional development is discussed. While external supervisors intended to support providers’ professional development, our findings indicate serious problems with this in a context of frequent evaluations and performance marking. Separating the role of supporter and evaluator does not appear as the simple solution. If external supervision is to improve health care services, it is essential that supervisors and health centre managers are competent to support providers in a way that transparently accounts for various performance pressures. This includes delivery of proper formative supervision with useful feedback, maintaining an effective supervisory relationship, as well as ensuring providers are aware of the purpose and content of evaluative and formative supervision functions.

Background: Patient–provider communication is an interpersonal interaction between a patient and a health care provider.Objective: This study explored patients’ communication preferences and perceptions on what factors influence the patient–provider communication in primary health care settings in Rwanda.Methods: In-depth semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals including 8 with limited literacy. A thematic inductive analysis was used.Results: Patients valued communication with providers and expressed the need for interacting with caring, empathic providers who can share all the information they want and involve them in their own care. Health literacy and power issues were factors that may influence patient–provider communication. Patients with limited literacy appeared to rely highly on health care providers for making decisions about and managing their health care.Conclusion: The expressed preferences, including those of patients with limited literacy, aligned well with the patient-centred care model. There were indications of a power imbalance weighing on the provider’s side. Although patients with limited literacy were reliant on providers for decision-making, they were ready to be more involved in the care, suggesting a potential for improved patient involvement even for patients with paternalistic care preferences. These patients’ insights can impact policies and curricula to optimise clinical practice. Generated knowledge will contribute to the indispensable yet underdeveloped field of health communication in sub-Saharan Africa.Practice implications: Findings call for more inclusion of patient perspectives in the patient–provider encounter. This could require more training of professionals and research on the topic, both in Rwanda and in other regions.

Background: External supervision of primary health care facilities to monitor and improve services is common in low-income countries. Currently there are no tools to measure the quality of support in external supervision in these countries. Aim: To develop a provider-reported instrument to assess the support delivered through external supervision in Rwanda and other countries. Methods: “External supervision: Provider Evaluation of Supervisor Support” (ExPRESS) was developed in 18 steps, primarily in Rwanda. Content validity was optimised using systematic search for related instruments, interviews, translations, and relevance assessments by international supervision experts as well as local experts in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Construct validity and reliability were examined in two separate field tests, the first using exploratory factor analysis and a test–retest design, the second for confirmatory factor analysis. Results: We included 16 items in section A (‘The most recent experience with an external supervisor’), and 13 items in section B (‘The overall experience with external supervisors’). Item-content validity index was acceptable. In field test I, test–retest had acceptable kappa values and exploratory factor analysis suggested relevant factors in sections A and B used for model hypotheses. In field test II, models were tested by confirmatory factor analysis fitting a 4-factor model for section A, and a 3-factor model for section B. Conclusions: ExPRESS is a promising tool for evaluation of the quality of support of primary health care providers in external supervision of primary health care facilities in resource-constrained settings. ExPRESS may be used as specific feedback to external supervisors to help identify and address gaps in the supervision they provide. Further studies should determine optimal interpretation of scores and the number of respondents needed per supervisor to obtain precise results, as well as test the functionality of section B.

Background: External supervision of Rwandan primary healthcare facilities unfolds as an interaction between supervisors and healthcare providers. Their relationship has not been thoroughly studied in Rwanda, and rarely in Africa.Aim: To explore perceived characteristics and effects of the relationship between providers in public primary healthcare facilities and their external supervisors in Rwanda.Setting: We conducted three focus group discussions with primary healthcare providers (n = 16), three with external supervisors (n = 15) and one mixed (n = 5).Methods: Focus groups were facilitated under low-moderator involvement. Findings were extracted thematically and discussed with participating and non-participating providers and supervisors.Results: While external supervision is intended as a source of motivation and professional development in addition to its managerial purpose, it appeared linked to excessive evaluation anxiety among Rwandan primary healthcare providers. Supervisors related this mainly to inescapable evaluations within performance-based financing, whereas providers additionally related it to communication problems.Conclusion: External supervision appeared driven by systematic performance evaluations, which may prompt a strongly asymmetric supervisory power relation and challenge intentions to explore providers’ experienced work problems. There is a risk that this may harm provider motivation, calling for careful attention to factors that influence the supervisory relationship. It is a dilemma that providers most in need of supervision to improve performance may be most unlikely to benefit from it. This study reveals a need for provider-oriented supportive supervision including constructive attention on providers who have performance difficulties, effective relationship building and communication, objective and diligent evaluation and two-way feedback channels.

Global health interventions often focus on specific diseases, thus forming vertical programmes. Studies show that vertical programmes perform poorly, which underlines the need for a horizontal basis: universal community-based primary health care, which improves health equity and outcomes. The diagonal approach supports an integrated patient-centered health-care system. The ''15% by 2015''-initiative suggests that vertical programmes invest 15% of their budgets in strengthening integrated primary health care. Strategies depend on local context.

The global shortage of health workers in a world with interdependence and vast inequalities in health calls for internationally coordinated context-sensitive actions to build a global health workforce of sufficient quantity and quality. This status article describes the global crisis in the health workforce and some solutions and stakeholders in play.