Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Dec 5;2(12):e0001333. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001333

Resource availability and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns in hospitals in the southern region of Malawi: A multisite observational study

Mtisunge Joshua Gondwe 1,2,*, Nicola Desmond 2,3, Mamuda Aminu 3, Stephen Allen 1
Editor: Julia Robinson4
PMCID: PMC10021306  PMID: 36962885

Abstract

Facility-based births have increased in low and middle-income countries, but babies still die due to poor care. Improving care leads to better newborn outcomes. However, data are lacking on how well facilities are prepared to support. We assessed the availability of human and material resources and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns. We adapted the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool to evaluate the resources for delivery and newborn care and barriers to delivering care, in a survey of seven hospitals in southern Malawi between January and February 2020. Data entered into a Microsoft Access database was exported to IBM SPSS 26 and Microsoft Excel for analysis. All hospitals had nursery wards with at least one staff available 24 hours, a clinical officer trained in paediatrics, at least one ambulance, intravenous cannulae, foetal scopes, weighing scales, aminophylline tablets and some basic laboratory tests. However, resources lacking some or all of the time included anticonvulsants, antibiotics, vitamin K, 50% dextrose, oxytocin, basic supplies such as cord clamps and nasal gastric tubes, laboratory tests such as bilirubin and blood culture and newborn clinical management guidelines. Staff reported that the main barriers to providing high-quality care were erratic supplies of power and water, inadequacies in the number of beds/cots, ambulances, drugs and supplies, essential laboratory tests, absence of newborn clinical protocols, and inadequate staff, including paediatric specialists, in-service training, and support from the management team. In hospitals in Malawi, quality care for deliveries and newborns was compromised by inadequacies in many human and material resources. Addressing these deficiencies would be expected to lead to better newborn outcomes.

Introduction

Globally, every minute nearly four newborn babies are stillborn and five die during the neonatal period (the first 28 days of life) [1, 2]. About 80% of stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur in low-middle income countries (LMICs) with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for 42% of these deaths.

A third of stillbirths occur during labour and on the day of birth [3, 4]. Globally in 2019, neonatal deaths contributed about 47% of all under-five deaths. About a third of all neonatal deaths occur within the first day of life and three quarters within the first week [5]. Malawi contributes significantly to global mortality, with perinatal and neonatal mortality rates at 35 per 1000 total births and 27 per 1000 live births in 2016, respectively [6]. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 and the vision and goals of the Every Newborn: an action plan to end preventable deaths [7], a focus on reducing neonatal mortality, especially during birth and the first day and week of life is crucial.

Most stillbirths and neonatal deaths result from preventable causes and are associated with poor quality of care during and after birth [1, 2, 810]. Good quality care could prevent almost two neonatal deaths every minute [9]. Providing quality care benefits both patient outcomes [6] and the health system [11].

Birth asphyxia (48%), complications of preterm delivery (40%) and sepsis (5%) have been identified as the leading causes of neonatal deaths in Malawi [12]. Improving care during the antepartum period, labour, delivery and postpartum could prevent stillbirths and neonatal deaths [13]. But the quality of care delivered by the facilities in Malawi falls significantly short of global standards of evidence-based care, despite nine out of ten women attending antenatal care and delivering at facility. Increased facility births has increased workload in many hospitals [10] and lack of staff and equipment compromises the quality of care in most LMICs especially for vulnerable groups [9, 11]. Delay in the decision to deliver has been identified as one of the contributing factor to newborn deaths. Although there has been a slight increase in the proportion of caesarian deliveries in Malawi, from 5% (2010) to 6% (2016) [6], the average decision to incision time of 1.69 hours is still too long to save the life of the baby during complicated pregnancy [14]. Furthermore only 60% of newborns in Malawi receive postnatal checks within 48 hours of delivery which is key for early identification of complications and prompt care [6]. At the community level, challenges such as cultural beliefs that prevent care seeking for sick newborns, particularly during the first seven days of life, and beliefs that do not value and honour the life of a newborn, especially low birth weight or preterm babies, also impact on mortality. To provide a good standard of care and a better user experience, health systems must be well prepared with material resources and sufficient staff with the knowledge, skills and capacity to deal with normal and complicated pregnancies, childbirths and the newborn [15].

Previous studies that assessed the quality of maternal or newborn care in Malawian health facilities highlighted challenges with infrastructure, transportation, communication, staff training, treatment guidelines and material and human resources [5, 16, 17]. It is important to assess additional aspects that affect the delivery of newborn care but were not covered in the earlier studies, such as staff availability in wards and leadership and governance challenges. It is also crucial to assess resource availability to support the application of the WHO’s quality of care standards guidelines, which have been locally adapted for use in Malawi but not discussed in earlier studies.

Assessing quality of health care using recognised standards, criteria and indicators is key to quality care improvement [18]. WHO published a framework for improving the quality of care for mothers and newborns [19]. Building on these frameworks and covering two of WHO’s six vision strategic areas of standards of care and measures of quality of care [19], WHO has published recently standards for improving the care of small and sick newborns [20]. The standards are guided by the eight domains of the WHO quality care framework [15] that health facility leaders, planners, managers and providers can use to assess and monitor the availability of resources, performance, areas for improvement and the impact of the intervention [19]. A standard is what is expected to be provided to ensure high-quality care [20]. Quality statements explain how to achieve the standard of care and are accompanied by quality measures used to assess, measure, and monitor inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes [20]. The eight standards are summarised in the Supporting Information (S1 Table) and address the following areas: practice based on research (evidence base practice); Information system that can be used (actionable information system); dependable system of referral (functional referral system); effective communication and family participation; respective women and newborn care; care that is supportive emotionally, developmentally and psychologically; multidisciplinary staff that are skilled, motivated and compassionate and physical resources (drugs, supplies, infrastructure, and equipment) that are necessary for pregnant women, babies and sick and small babies [20].

Malawi adapted all eight WHO quality of care framework standards and added a ninth standard regarding community health care and social accountability in maternal and neonatal health and published these for use in April 2020 [21]. However, Malawi has not yet adapted recently published WHO standards for improving small and sick newborn [20].

Little is known on resource availability in LMICs to meet the quality-of-care standards set by WHO [19, 20, 22]. This study was conducted between January to February 2020 in the context of a larger study evaluating stillbirth and neonatal death audit in the southern region of Malawi We assessed the availability of human and material resources and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns.

Materials and methods

Study design and setting

This survey was done in seven public hospitals in the southern region of Malawi purposively selected to represent health facilities in the region with neonatal mortality at district level ranging from 15 to 30 per 1000 live births [6]. The selected hospitals included one central hospital (tertiary level, hospital 1) and six district hospitals (secondary level, hospitals 2–7). The central hospital provides specialised inpatient and outpatient care at a regional level and serves referrals from the district hospitals and health centres within the region. The district hospitals provides both outpatient and inpatient services and serves referrals from community hospitals and health centres. Health centres were not included as they do not admit neonates.

Data collection tools

We adapted the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) tool [23] to assess facility readiness to provide quality newborn care during birth and up to 28 days postnatally. Information was collected regarding facility characteristics, infrastructure, transport and communication, staff availability in labour, postnatal and neonatal wards, staff training in the last 12 months, material inventories (essential supplies, drugs, equipment and laboratory), clinical protocols, leadership and governance (S1 Appendix). We piloted the tool in hospital 2 and incorporated appropriate changes such as including pharmacy stock out days to better achieve a comprehensive view of care. The data collection methods included observed availability in a service area, interviews with wards in charge and laboratory and pharmacy staff and stock card checking.

Administering the health facility assessment

Initially, the study team introduced the study to central and district management teams and secured permission to conduct the study. An introductory meeting was then held with facility management and staff. The first author (MG) conducted the health facility assessments between January to February 2020. The health facility resource survey was carried out with senior or ward nurses in charge of the labour, postnatal and neonatal wards, and pharmacy and laboratory staff available on the assessment day. During interviews, staff were asked if resources were always, sometimes, or never available in the previous three months. “Always available” means the resource was available every day for the last three months (no days of stockout) or the service was provided all of the time at the facility, or the staff cadre was available all of the time during the shift. “Sometimes” means the resource was not available every day throughout the course of the past three months (some stockout days) or the service was occasionally provided, or the staff cadre was occasionally on duty. “Never” means that the resource or supply was not available during the entire three-month period, or a service was never provided at the facility or staff cadre was not on duty at any point during the shift. The health resource survey took two days in each hospital.

Data analysis

Data extracted from paper forms was entered into a Microsoft Access database. Data were checked for anomalies by running descriptive summaries and data entry errors were corrected. There was no imputation of missing data. Data were exported to IBM SPSS 26 and Microsoft Excel for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise scores allowing comparisons between hospitals.

Ethics statement

Approval was obtained from the College of Medicine (P.11/19/2869) and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (19–076) ethics committees. All hospitals gave permission to conduct the study. All healthcare workers who took part in the study signed a written ethics-approved informed consent form.

Inclusivity in global research

Additional information regarding the ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusivity in global research is included in the Supporting Information (S1 Checklist).

Results

Hospital characteristics

All seven hospitals offered maternal and neonatal services 24 hours each day. Each hospital had labour, postnatal and nursery wards/area. All seven hospitals admitted babies up to age 2 months requiring specialised care. Bed capacity and staffing levels for each hospital are shown in Table 1. Although there was a particular shortage of nursing/midwifery officers across all hospitals, overall, there was marked variability between hospitals in the proportion of staff posts filled. This contributed to marked discrepancies between hospitals in the number of staff in post according to the number of beds in all wards. Although none of the hospitals had a full-time paediatrician, all hospitals had at least one general medical officer available for consultation in all wards during both day and night shifts. All hospitals had at least one clinical officer trained in obstetrics and gynaecology or paediatrics, a clinical technician trained at diploma level, at least one registered nurse/midwife trained at degree level and at least three nurse/midwife technicians trained at diploma level and stationed at each ward.

Table 1. Bed capacity and staffing levels1,2,3.

Central hospital District hospitals
Hospital 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total deliveries per year 7302 7511 4659 4143 10898 4486 6411
Total neonatal admissions per year 2734 1778 1283 744 1902 809 1463
Number of Labour ward beds 9 8 8 7 8 4 9
Number of postnatal beds 31 88 54 18 38 35 33
Number of nursery beds 52 41 26 10 12 22 20
Number of Staff Labour ward
 Medical Officer/Specialists 2 1 1 2 3 1 2
 Clinical Officer/Technician 1 1 2 3 1 3 4
 Nursing/Midwifery Officers 7 1 5 4 2 2 3
 Nurse/midwife technician 11 5 9 6 9 5 11
 Support staff 9 5 5 7 10 12 12
Number of Staff Postnatal ward
 Medical Officer/Specialists 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0
 Clinical Officer/Technician 1 3 2 3 3 _ 3
 Nursing/Midwifery Officers 6 2 2 2 2 _ 2
 Nurse/midwife Technician 9 4 4 5 10 _ 10
 Support staff 9 5 7 6 12 _ 12
Number of staff nursery ward
 Medical Officer/Specialists 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Clinical Officer/Technician 2 1 2 3 5 1 1
 Nursing/Midwifery Officers 6 1 2 2 1 3 2
 Nurse/midwife technician 8 6 4 3 5 1 5
 Support staff 6 6 1 0 0 0 0

1 One month data for hospital 3- and two-months data for hospital 4 were missing

2 Dash (-) postnatal ward within labour ward

3 Nursing/Midwifery Officer trained at degree level while nurse/midwife technician trained at diploma level. Clinical Officers are trained at degree level while clinical technicians are trained at diploma level. Support staff includes patients and hospital attendants

Infrastructure

Inadequate electricity and water supply were noted in all hospitals with an adequate power backup system in hospital 3 only. Water supply failed during power cuts, but all hospitals had reservoir tanks and buckets with a tap for handwashing when piped water was unavailable.

Transport and communication

Although three hospitals were allocated one or more ambulances per 50,000 population, only about two-thirds of ambulances were functional so that only hospital 6 had adequate provision (S2 Table). All hospitals had always one functional landline telephone or mobile phone for use.

Staff availability and training

Table 1 summarises the number of staff allocated in the wards, while Table 2 summarises the availability of staff during day and night shift in the wards. Nurses/midwife technicians and support staff were the only staff always available during day and night shifts in all wards. One clinical officer or technician was available on call during the night shift. Twenty five percent or less of ward staff were trained in each category assessed despite a recommendation that all ward members should be trained or refreshed every 12 months [19]. In the previous 12 months, only 22.7% of clinicians and nurses across all hospitals had been trained in Integrated Maternal and Neonatal Care (IMNC), 23.1% in Helping Babies Breathe (HBB), 15.6% in Care of Infant and Newborn (COIN), and 25.3% in maternal and neonatal death audit (S3 Table).

Table 2. Staff availability1,2.

Facility Labour ward
Availability day Availability night
Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff
Hospital 1
Hospital 2
Hospital 3
Hospital 4
Hospital 5
Hospital 6
Hospital 7
Facility Postnatal ward
Availability day Availability night
Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff
Hospital 1
Hospital 2
Hospital 3
Hospital 4
Hospital 5
Hospital 6
Hospital 7
Facility Nursery ward
Availability day Availability night
Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff Medical Officer Registered nurse/Midwife Clinical Officer Nurse/Midwife Technician Support Staff
Hospital 1
Hospital 2
Hospital 3
Hospital 4
Hospital 5
Hospital 6
Hospital 7

1Green = Always, Yellow = Sometimes, Red = Never

2Always- staff cadre available all the time during the shift. Sometimes- Occasionally on duty. Never—Not on duty at any point during the shift

Essential supplies, drugs and equipment

All hospitals had at least one essential drug or supply out of stock in the month preceding the assessment (S4 Table). The number of stockout days, however, varied amongst the facilities and ranged from 1 to 9 essential supplies out of stock. For instance, hospital 2 had four essential supplies (cord clamp, nasogastric tubes, nasal prongs, and thermometers) out of stock for 31 days as well as four essential drugs (50 percent dextrose, gentamycin, ceftriaxone, and vitamin K) out of stock for two to thirty days in the month prior to the assessment, whereas hospital 1 only had cord clamps out of stock for 23 days, in the same period. Even though some supplies and drugs were available at the pharmacy, their availability in wards varied, with most drugs not always available especially 50% dextrose, diazepam, magnesium sulphate, benzylpenicillin, gentamycin, ceftriaxone and Vitamin K (Table 3). Despite glucometer and blood pressure machines often being available, there were challenges is supplies of glucose test strips and blood pressure batteries for them to function. Basic supplies such as cord clamps, nasogastric tubes and urine dipsticks were not always available in hospitals. Labour and nursery wards had at least one to two functional essential equipment oxygen concentrator, sunction machine, bag and mask and resuscitaire always available, but postnatal wards lacked such essential equipment for the care of the neonate. Only nursery wards were equipped with CPAP and phototherapy lamps for the management of newborns with respiratory distress and jaundice, respectively.

Table 3. Availability of essential supplies, drugs and equipment1,2,3.

RESOURCES Hospital 1 Hospital 2 Hospital 3 Hospital 4 Hospital 5 Hospital 6 Hospital 7
Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Neonatal ward
ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES
Intravenous cannula
Intravenous fluids
Giving sets
Sterile blade
Cord clamp
Nasal gastric tubes
Heaters
Nasal prongs
Guedel airway
Glucometer
Glucometer test stripes
Thermometers
BP apparatus
BP Calf batteries N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U
Foetal scope N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U
weighing scale
urine dipsticks
ESSENTIAL DRUGS
50% dextrose
Diazepam
Phenobarbitone
Magnesium Sulphate N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U
Benzylpenicillin
Gentamycin
Ceftriaxone
Oxytocin NU N/U N/U N/U NU NU N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U N/U
Dexamethasone
Vitamin K
Aminophylline tablets
Artesunate
ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT
Bag and Mask
Resuscitaire
Suction machine
Oxygen concentrator
CPAP
Phototherapy

1Green = Always, Orange = Sometimes, Red = Never

2N/U- Equipment is only used in Labour wards not in postnatal and nursery wards

3CPAP- Continuous positive airway pressure

Laboratory tests

Basic laboratory diagnostic tests were provided except for haematocrit, bilirubin, blood gas analysis and blood cultures that were uniformly not provided. (Table 4).

Table 4. Laboratory1.

Resources Central hospital District hospitals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Full Blood Count
Bilirubin
Blood glucose
Malaria Smear
Grouping and Crossmatch
CSF analysis
Haematocrit (PCV)
Haemoglobin
Arterial blood gases
Urine Microscopy
Urine dipstick
HIV
Syphilis
Blood Culture

1Green = Test conducted at hospital, Red = Test not conducted at hospital

Clinical protocols

Clinical protocols for neonatal resuscitation, care of small and preterm babies, care of the sick neonate and essential newborn care were available in some of the nursery wards but not in the labour and postnatal wards (Table 5). Infection prevention protocols were absent in 9/21 (43%) wards assessed. Protocols for the management of complications of labour were available in almost all labour and postnatal wards.

Table 5. Availability of clinical protocols in wards1.

Central hospital District hospitals
Protocols and governance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward Labour ward Postnatal ward Nursery ward
Clinical protocols pasted on the wall
Neonatal resuscitation
Infection prevention
Care of small and preterm babies
Care of the sick neonate
Essential newborn care
Management of complications of labour NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1 Green = Available, Red = Not available, N/A = Not applicable

Leadership and governance

Neonatal outcome data were summarised and pasted on the wall in wards of hospitals 1, 3, 5 and 7. Staff appraisals had been performed in the last 12 months only in hospital 2. Supportive supervision was done by national-level (Ministry of Health) staff but not by the District Health Management Team (DHMT) in all facilities. All seven facilities reported having functional neonatal death audit teams in place though the frequency of neonatal death audit meetings differed, with only 2 hospitals reported having audits in the month prior to the survey. Quality improvement teams were available but inactive in all facilities.

Discussion

Summary of findings

All hospitals provided maternal and newborn health services and had at least one clinical officer trained in paediatrics and one healthcare worker available 24 hours a day to provide care to sick neonates. All hospitals had a separate nursery ward or unit dedicated to neonatal care though bed capacity varied. All hospitals had clinical protocols for managing labour complications pasted on the walls of the labour and postnatal wards. Some essential supplies and laboratory tests were always available.

However, many essential drugs and basic supplies were not always available for mothers and newborns. Clinical protocols for neonatal resuscitation, infection prevention, care of small and preterm babies, care of the sick neonate and essential newborn care were not available in some hospitals. Staff reported several barriers to providing high-quality care including inadequate beds, erratic power and water supplies, inadequate ambulances, inadequate in-service staff training, unavailability of other staff cadres during the night (as only nursing staff is always available), lack of paediatrician specialists, inadequate drugs, supplies and essential laboratory tests, absence of newborn clinical protocols and inadequate support from management teams. Supporting Information (S1 Table) summarises the key standards relevant to the data captured in this study.

Infrastructure

Our finding regarding nursery ward space is inconsistent with the WHO 2020 standards for providing high-quality care to small and sick newborns [20]. Limited nursery beds resulted in nursing more than one baby in a single cot increasing the risk of infection and overburdening staff [2427]. Hospital-acquired infections among neonates cause about 30–40% of neonatal deaths [28]. With more than 90% of women delivering at the facility and inadequate ward infrastructure, the nursery wards are always full, resulting in nursing more than one baby in cot [6].

However, according to the Newborn Essential Solution and Technologies (NEST360°) programme’s recommendations, staff is advised on how to prevent infection in such unavoidable circumstances by grouping babies with similar conditions together [29]. With the help of commonly available, affordable medical technologies combined with comprehensive, evidence-based newborn care, ongoing clinical and biomedical mentorship, and the use of data to guide decision-making, NEST360° intends to lower the rate of inpatient newborn death in African countries (Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania and Nigeria) [29].

We found that power and water supplies were often interrupted despite the adapted Malawi standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care [21] emphasizing the importance of adequate water and energy supplies. Birth asphyxia, prematurity and respiratory distress are common in this setting [6] making power-dependent equipment such as oxygen concentrators, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and phototherapy essential for reducing mortality. Inadequate infrastructure has been reported previously in Malawi [16, 17, 30] compromising compliance with the WHO 2020 standards on supplemental oxygen and CPAP management. Oxygen concentrators, CPAP, phototherapy, suction machines, and pulse oximeters are some of the technologies that NEST360° is using to equip staff on its use and care to support sick neonates [29]. However, much of this technology needs a constant power supply to operate, which is rarely constant in this context. In situations when the electrical grid is intermittent, the use of renewable energy systems has been encouraged [31]. Some Malawian facilities (including one in this study) received solar power packs from UNICEF or global funds in 2017–2018, however there are still issues with management and technical capability at the central and facility levels for the continuous operation and maintenance of solar systems [31].

Transport and communication

Timely referral for obstetric emergencies is vital in preventing morbidity and mortality in the newborn. A critical shortage of ambulances was noted in these hospitals despite the adapted Malawi standards which stress having a pre-established plan for timely referrals. The hospitals were compliant with the adapted standards having either a mobile phone, landline or radio that functions all times. Reliable communication channels are crucial as theatre staff, specialists and medical officers are often not available during off-time hours in case of emergency. Referral to higher-level care and communication tools were among proposed signal functions for supporting quality obstetric and newborn care in a literature review and expert opinion survey with 39 international experts from LMICs [32]. Due to inadequate funds, district hospitals face challenges in maintaining or fuelling the ambulance which may cause delay. However, a systematic review that included studies conducted from Malawi and Ghana found that use of motorcycle ambulances reduced referral delays [33]. Although a birth preparedness and complication readiness plan is encouraged for pregnant mothers, only 24% of pregnant women in the second and third trimester in an Ethiopian study were prepared for delivery and obstetric emergencies, that include emergency funds or transport in the event of a complication or onset of labour [34]. Birth preparedness and complication readiness need to be intensified during antenatal health education.

Staff availability and training

Compared to the WHO-recommended threshold of 4.45 doctors, nurses, and midwives per 1000 population [35], the Malawi health care system is severely understaffed with 0.5 clinical and nursing staff per 1000 population [36], nine times less than recommended threshold. All hospitals had a critical shortage of registered nurses/midwives as the proportion of filled posts were below 50%. At the same time, hospitals 1 and 6 also had a critical shortage of medical officers/specialists [36]. In comparison to other central hospitals in Malawi, hospital 1 is severely understaffed, with a vacancy rate of 51% for clinical staff and 58% for nursing/midwifery staff [36]. This understaffing resulted in only nursing/midwifery and support staff always available during day and night shifts. Studies conducted in Bangladesh and Malawi reported that numbers of nursing/midwifery staff were insufficient with staff facing excessive workloads that surpass their capacity to cope during the night shift, compromising the quality of care [37]. Clinicians were not always available during the night shift across all three areas compromising the required skill mix to manage sick newborns and putting an extra workload on the night duty nurse. Only one to two clinicians were available on call to cover both the paediatric and neonatal units for hospital 1 or to cover the whole hospital for hospitals 2–7. These findings are at odds with the adapted Malawi standards on having competent, motivated staff consistently available to provide routine care and manage complications.

Furthermore, we found a lack of specialised paediatricians/neonatologists and few trained clinical officers in obstetrics /gynaecology and paediatrics. In an attempt to compensate for the long-standing shortage of skilled staff [38], Malawi has adopted the use of mid-level cadres like clinical officers, medical assistants, and nurse-midwives at registered, enrolled and technician grades to provide both emergency and routine care [37, 39, 40]. Recently, Malawi introduced a two-year speciality training programme for qualified clinical officers in obstetrics /gynaecology, paediatric, surgery and internal medicine. This should increase the number of trained clinical officers in obstetric and paediatric specialities to ensure that at least one clinical officer, well equipped with maternal and neonatal care skills, is always available during the day, night, and weekend shifts.

Although mid-level cadres can help reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths in LMICs, these staff require in-service training to update skills and competencies [4143]. Nurses in LMICs obtain competence in neonatal care through training on the job [44]. In the absence of speciality training in Malawi, some nurses and clinicians working in the neonatal unit had benefitted from occasional in-service training such as COIN. However, we found inadequate training in all hospitals for HBB, COIN, IMNC and maternal and neonatal death audits. This is inconsistent with the adapted Malawi standards that recommend regular in-service or refresher training every 12 months. As training alone is not effective in improving quality of care, we recommend the inclusion of supportive supervision from both national and district levels as suggested by Rowe and colleagues [45, 46].

Availability of essential supplies, drugs and equipment

Material resources are vital to providing quality care during childbirth with a better user experience [15]. Despite the adapted Malawi standards and like other LMICs [16, 17, 27, 30], we found that facilities were underequipped with many essential drugs, supplies, equipment, and laboratory items. Interestingly, despite all hospitals procuring supplies and drugs from the same central medical stores, we observed variations in stocks of essential drugs and supplies between hospitals. For example, one hospital had 8 out of 21 items out of stock in January, while others had only 1–4 items out of stock. This suggests a need to improve drug and supplies needs assessment to ensure continuous availability of items at the hospital level with an adequate budget allocated. A review of case studies of interventions that generated or maximized resources to facilitate effective public health interventions in three LMICs (Zambia, Zimbabwe and Madagascar), recommended that evaluating and identifying contextual factors that influence the feasibility of interventions should be a top priority for researchers and implementers [47]. The contextual factors influencing the feasibility of these interventions included leadership engagement, local capacity building, infrastructural support for multilevel scale up and cultural and contextual adaptation [47].

Clinical protocols

The adapted Malawi standards emphasise the need for written, up to date clinical protocols. These should be consistent with WHO guidelines [19] and address routine maternal and newborn care, complicated pregnancy and labour, preterm labour, infection prevention, care of small and preterm babies, resuscitation of babies who cannot breathe and essential newborn care. However, clinical protocols were missing in some hospitals. A study in Ethiopia [48] and a systematic review for LMICs [49] found unavailability of protocols on essential newborn care and neonatal resuscitation in hospitals. In an Ethiopian study that surveyed 741 health facilities, of which 14% were hospitals and 86% were health centres, only 60% and 37% of essential newborn care guidelines were available in hospitals and health centres, respectively [48]. Four neonatal intensive care units in Thailand lacked dissemination of practice protocols to nurses and Ethiopian hospitals and health centres that conduct deliveries had no guidelines and protocols on essential newborn care and neonatal resuscitation [49]. Similarly, in this study, labour ward and postnatal wards mostly lacked newborn care guidelines.

Leadership and governance

Good managerial and clinical leadership improve performance by directing staff and creating an environment for support [19]. Supportive supervision and performance appraisal, identified as a gap in this study, accompanying the provision of resources are integral to improving health care, worker job satisfaction, motivation, and performance. But supervisors in LMICs often lack skills, tools, and transportation, are overburdened with administrative duties, and wait for a financial incentive (per diem). As a result, supervision visits are missed with little accountability as to whether supervision is done or not [46]. Despite the adapted Malawi standards which advocate for competent, motivated staff consistently available to provide routine care and manage complications, we found that district management teams failed to supervise their own facilities. Only the national level team visits facilities on quarterly basis and gives feedback. It is a requirement for national level (MoH) staff in Malawi to supervise districts, similarly the DHMT members supervise their facilities on quarterly basis [50]. The DHMT acts as both external supervisors for health centres as well as internal supervisors within their own departments and wards, usually using a checklist and giving feedback [50]. In a study conducted in 9 hospitals and 45 health centres in Malawi, only 57% of staff felt that they were adequately supervised [51]. In Tanzania, barriers to supervision included lack of a clear policy, limitations in measuring quality improvement progress and resource constraints such as funds and limited number of supervisors [52].

Even though facility interventions may enhance care, facility leaders should strive to offer comprehensive care at all system levels, including in the community. In the Maikhanda programme in Malawi, more neonatal deaths were prevented when quality improvement at the facility level was implemented in combination with community involvement than when it was done alone [53].

Guidelines and standards implementation

Despite internationally recognised WHO guidelines and standards, challenges have been reported on the operationalisation of guidelines for maternal health in LMICs [54]. WHO recommends the adaption of standards to suit the context of each country [19] and in Malawi, a multidisciplinary working group comprising clinicians, nurses, policymakers and development partners adapted the WHO standards and, recognising the importance of community engagement, added a ninth standard on community health care and social accountability for maternal and neonatal health [55]. Despite these efforts at the national level, this study has revealed deficiencies in the support for delivering quality care during delivery and for newborns. WHO has provided an implementation approach for the standard with seven steps according to the ’Plan Do Study Act’ model: establishing leadership structures and functions, adapting standards of care, conducting a baseline situation analysis or assessment, ensuring essential infrastructure to get started, building capability and implementing interventions, monitoring progress, and refining the strategy [19]. This study has reported deficiencies that provide a basis for developing interventions to improve standard implementation in Malawi. In addition, the WHO and Malawi adapted standards on maternal and newborn care lack clear monitoring and evaluation plans and tools to improve the implementation guidance and learning platform [19, 21].

We also observed variations among hospitals in terms of the management of necessary medications and supplies. This could be because the hospitals typically execute an incomplete drug assessment plan before placing orders from the central medical store, In a qualitative study which examined the facilitators and barriers to implementing stillbirth and neonatal death audit [56], causes of insufficient supplies included limited facility autonomy and decision-making powers despite decentralisation, one sole supplier for drugs and essential drugs with limited powers to outsource if they were not available, and inadequate leadership support. Financial support also remained inadequate in the facilities, which depended on external donors to fund activities, resources and equipment. This brings variations as donors operate within their specified catchment region resulting in some hospitals receiving more support than others.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study were the inclusion of one central and six district hospitals from 7 districts in Malawi increasing the applicability of the findings. We also used a WHO validated checklist (SARA) for assessing service availability and readiness making comparisons with other studies easier. This tool was also used for the Maikhanda quality improvement project evaluation in Malawi to assess the facility resources [30]. The assessed parameters were comprehensive, including maternal and newborn services, physical infrastructure, availability of resources, equipment and supplies, guidelines, staffing, training, leadership and governance. The methods generated a wealth of information to identify gaps and recommend improvement.

This assessment also had several limitations. It was only conducted in the southern region of Malawi, which may limit generalisation at the national level. Despite decentralisation, the management of human, material, financial, and donor resources is centralised across three regions in Malawi. The insights from this study may be useful to the other regions in Malawi and LMICs with similar management systems. The survey did not capture caesarean section capacity as an important approach to reducing stillbirths and early neonatal deaths. The survey only reported general readiness needed to prevent stillbirth and neonatal deaths, not necessarily differentiating readiness to prevent stillbirths and where that overlaps and differ for neonatal deaths in hospitals and post discharge. Information was primarily from self-reports; further studies could include direct observation of care to confirm data reliability and semi-structured interviews with staff and women to understand their experience of care (standards 4–6). Due to financial and time constraints, our assessment parameters did not include the following components of the maternal and newborn care standards, actionable information system, effective communication and family participation, respective women and newborn care and emotional and psychological and developmental support. Also, we did not assess the referral feedback system. Finally, our study did not include observation of care delivery, community components of care and quality improvement that could have provided additional information on facility readiness. Our assessment focused on in hospital care to prevent stillbirths and neonatal death but little on prehospital care and post-discharge care. However, since most of our findings were consistent across the seven facilities, we consider that the study provides information that can guide interventions, implementers, policy, and researchers to improve the quality of care for newborns and outcomes.

Conclusion

Human and material resources to provide quality care during delivery and for newborns were mostly inadequate and inconsistent with the Malawi standards. Assessing the current status of resource availability and barriers to delivering care has highlighted gaps in the system. These provide a basis for health care professionals, policymakers, health service planners, programme managers, regulators, professional bodies and technical partners involved in maternal and newborn care to help in planning, delivering and ensuring the quality of health service delivery. Addressing these deficiencies would be expected to lead to better newborn outcomes. A multi-country evaluation study is needed to better understand and identify ways of mitigating challenges in the implementation of WHO or adapted quality standards.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global health.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Health facility resource survey tool.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Standards of care and quality statements.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Total ambulances by facility.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Training of clinicians and nurses.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Number of stockout days in the preceding month of essential supplies and drugs in pharmacy.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank staff and management team members from all seven participating hospitals who provided this study information. We would also like to thank Ismaela Abubakar from the Clinical Trial Unit at LSTM, who helped with the development of forms and tables in Microsoft Access. Thanks to Dr Joana Raven and Dr Florence Mgawadere from LSTM for guidance during concept development and manuscript review. Many thanks to Professor David Lissauer and Maternal Health group and Mtundu khongono from Malawi-Liverpool Wellcome Trust, Clinical Research Programme, for support during fieldwork.

Data Availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Funding Statement

MJG received a Commonwealth Commission Doctoral Scholarship (MWCSC, 2018, 802). MJG was also supported by a Wellcome Strategic award number 206545/Z/17/Z that supports Malawi Liverpool Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme (MLW). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.UN IGME. Levels & Trends in Child mortality Report 2020. New York, US; 2020 16 October 2020.
  • 2.UN IGME. A Neglected Tragedy:The global burden of stillbirths Report of the UN Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation, 2020. 2020.
  • 3.Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Oza S, You D, Lee ACC, Waiswa P, et al. Every Newborn: progress, priorities, and potential beyond survival. The Lancet. 2014;384(9938):189–205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sankar MJ, Natarajan CK, Das RR, Agarwal R, Chandrasekaran A, Paul VK. When do newborns die? A systematic review of timing of overall and cause-specific neonatal deaths in developing countries. Journal of Perinatology. 2016;36(1):S1–S11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leslie HH, Fink G, Nsona H, Kruk ME. Obstetric Facility Quality and Newborn Mortality in Malawi: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.National Statistical Office (NSO) [Malawi], ICF Macro. Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2015–16. Zomba, Malawi, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NSO and ICF; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. Every Newborn an action plan to end preventable deaths. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lawn JE, Lee AC, Kinney M, Sibley L, Carlo WA, Paul VK, et al. Two million intrapartum-related stillbirths and neonatal deaths: where, why, and what can be done? Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;107 Suppl 1:S5–18, S9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. The Lancet Global Health. 2018;6(11):e1196–e252. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, Amouzou A, Mathers C, Hogan D, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and acceleration towards 2030. The Lancet. 2016;387(10018):587–603. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00837-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.World Health Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Bank; TW. Delivering quality health services: A global imperative for universal health coverage. Geneva; 2018. Contract No.: ISBN 978-92-4-151390-6 WHO ISBN 978-92-64-30030-9 (PDF) OECD.
  • 12.Malawi Child Health Strategy II 2021–2026: Pathway to Newborn, Infant, Child Survival and Health Development, (2021).
  • 13.Di Mario S, Say L, Lincetto O. Risk factors for stillbirth in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34:S11–21. doi: 10.1097/01.olq.0000258130.07476.e3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Harfouche M, Hosseinipour M, Wilkinson J, Kaliti S. Quality indicators and outcomes of emergency caesarean deliveries at a district-level maternity hospital. African Journal of Reproductive Health. 2015;19(3):61–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tuncalp Were WM, MacLennan C, Oladapo OT, Gulmezoglu AM, Bahl R, et al. Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns-the WHO vision. Bjog. 2015;122(8):1045–9. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kawaza K, Kinshella M-LW, Hiwa T, Njirammadzi J, Banda M, Vidler M, et al. Assessing quality of newborn care at district facilities in Malawi. BMC Health Services Research. 2020;20(1):227. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-5065-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Smith H, Asfaw AG, Aung KM, Chikoti L, Mgawadere F, d’Aquino L, et al. Implementing the WHO integrated tool to assess quality of care for mothers, newborns and children: results and lessons learnt from five districts in Malawi. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1461-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mainz J, Hammershøy E, Worning A, Juul S. Quality assessment, quality assurance and quality improvement in health care. Concepts and terminology. Ugeskrift for laeger. 1992;154(17):1151–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.World Health Organization. Standards for improving quality of maternal and newborn care in health facilities. Geneva: WHO; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.World Health Organization. Standards for improving the quality of care for small and sick newborns in health facilities. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Government of Malawi. Standards for Improving Quality of Maternal and Newborn Care in Malawi. In: Ministry of Health & Population, editor. Lilongwe, Malawi2020.
  • 22.World Health Organization. Standards for improving the quality of care for children and young adolescents in health facilities. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.World Health Organization, editor Service availability and readiness assessment (SARA): an annual monitoring system for service delivery: reference manual 2013: World Health Organization.
  • 24.Zaka N, Alexander EC, Manikam L, Norman ICF, Akhbari M, Moxon S, et al. Quality improvement initiatives for hospitalised small and sick newborns in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0712-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gondwe MJ, Mhango JM, Desmond N, Aminu M, Allen S. Approaches, enablers, barriers and outcomes of implementing facility-based stillbirth and neonatal death audit in LMICs: a systematic review. BMJ Open Quality. 2021;10(1):e001266. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nair M, Yoshida S, Lambrechts T, Boschi-Pinto C, Bose K, Mason EM, et al. Facilitators and barriers to quality of care in maternal, newborn and child health: a global situational analysis through metareview. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e004749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM, Vogel J, Carroli G, Lumbiganon P, Qureshi Z, et al. Moving beyond essential interventions for reduction of maternal mortality (the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health): a cross-sectional study. The Lancet. 2013;381(9879):1747–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Távora ACVCF, Castro AB, Militão MAM, Girão JE, Ribeiro KdCB, Távora LGF. Risk factors for nosocomial infection in a Brazilian neonatal intensive care unit. Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2008;12(1):75–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.NEST360°. Newborn Essential Solutions and Technologies-Education–Clinical Modules. June 2020.
  • 30.Colbourn T, Nambiar B, Costello A. MaiKhanda: final evaluation report, The impact of quality improvement at health facilities and community mobilisation by women’s groups on birth outcomes: an effectiveness study in three districts of Malawi. The health Insititution; 2013. 16 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Government of Malawi. UN, UNICEF.. Enegry Needs Assessment of Malawi’s Health Sector: Empowering Health Services. In: Energy Do, editor. Lilongwe, Malawi2018.
  • 32.Gabrysch S, Civitelli G, Edmond KM, Mathai M, Ali M, Bhutta ZA, et al. New signal functions to measure the ability of health facilities to provide routine and emergency newborn care. PLoS medicine. 2012;9(11):e1001340–e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Alaofe H, Lott B, Kimaru L, Okusanya B, Okechukwu A, Chebet J, et al. Emergency Transportation Interventions for Reducing Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Ann Glob Health. 2020;86(1):147. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2934 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bitew Y, Awoke W, Chekol S. Birth Preparedness and Complication Readiness Practice and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women, Northwest Ethiopia. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2016;2016:8727365. doi: 10.1155/2016/8727365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scheffler RM, Campbell J, Cometto G, Maeda A, Liu J, Bruckner TA, et al. Forecasting imbalances in the global health labor market and devising policy responses. Human resources for health. 2018;16(1):5-. doi: 10.1186/s12960-017-0264-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Government of Republic of Malawi. Human resources for Health strategic plan 2018–22. In: Resource H, editor. Lilongwe: Ministry of Health; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bradley S, Kamwendo F, Chipeta E, Chimwaza W, de Pinho H, McAuliffe E. Too few staff, too many patients: a qualitative study of the impact on obstetric care providers and on quality of care in Malawi. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2015;15:65-. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0492-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dogba M, Fournier P. Human resources and the quality of emergency obstetric care in developing countries: a systematic review of the literature. Hum Resour Health. 2009;7:7. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-7-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chilopora G, Pereira C, Kamwendo F, Chimbiri A, Malunga E, Bergström S. Postoperative outcome of caesarean sections and other major emergency obstetric surgery by clinical officers and medical officers in Malawi. Hum Resour Health. 2007;5:17. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-5-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wilson A, Lissauer D, Thangaratinam S, Khan KS, MacArthur C, Coomarasamy A. A comparison of clinical officers with medical doctors on outcomes of caesarean section in the developing world: meta-analysis of controlled studies. BMJ. 2011;342:d2600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2600 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Baumgartner JN, Headley J, Kirya J, Guenther J, Kaggwa J, Kim MK, et al. Impact evaluation of a maternal and neonatal health training intervention in private Ugandan facilities. Health Policy and Planning. 2021;36(7):1103–15. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czab072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Burgoine K, Ikiror J, Akol S, Kakai M, Talyewoya S, Sande A, et al. Staged implementation of a two-tiered hospital-based neonatal care package in a resource-limited setting in Eastern Uganda. BMJ Global Health. 2018;3(1):e000586. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Metin Gülmezoglu A, Lawrie TA. Impact of training on emergency resuscitation skills: Impact on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2015;29(8):1119–25. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.03.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.World Health Organization. Human resource strategies to improve newborn care in health facilities in low- and middle-income countries. Geneva,; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gitonga L. Essential Maternal and Newborn Care Skills Training for Midwives: Their Impact on Reducing Maternal and Neonatal Mortalities in Kenya. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;6(1):73–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rowe AK, de Savigny D, Lanata CF, Victora CG. How can we achieve and maintain high-quality performance of health workers in low-resource settings? The Lancet. 2005;366(9490):1026–35. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67028-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ojo T, Kabasele L, Boyd B, Enechukwu S, Ryan N, Gyamfi J, et al. The Role of Implementation Science in Advancing Resource Generation for Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Health Serv Insights. 2021;14:1178632921999652. doi: 10.1177/1178632921999652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Haile-Mariam A, Tesfaye N, Otterness C, Bailey PE. Assessing the health system’s capacity to conduct neonatal resuscitation in Ethiopia. Ethiop Med J. 2012;50:43–55. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bolan N, Cowgill KD, Walker K, Kak L, Shaver T, Moxon S, et al. Human Resources for Health-Related Challenges to Ensuring Quality Newborn Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021;9(1):160–76. doi: 10.9745/GHSP-D-20-00362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bradley S, Kamwendo F, Masanja H, de Pinho H, Waxman R, Boostrom C, et al. District health managers’ perceptions of supervision in Malawi and Tanzania. Human Resources for Health. 2013;11:43-. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-43 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mueller DH, Lungu D, Acharya A, Palmer N. Constraints to Implementing the Essential Health Package in Malawi. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nyamhanga TM, Frumence G, Hurtig A-K. Facilitators and barriers to effective supervision of maternal and newborn care: a qualitative study from Shinyanga region, Tanzania. Global Health Action. 2021;14(1):1927330. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2021.1927330 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Colbourn T, Nambiar B, Costello A, editors. MaiKhanda: final evaluation report, The impact of quality improvement at health facilities and community mobilisation by women’s groups on birth outcomes: an effectiveness study in three districts of Malawi 2013: The health Insititution.
  • 54.Puchalski Ritchie LM, Khan S, Moore JE, Timmings C, van Lettow M, Vogel JP, et al. Low- and middle-income countries face many common barriers to implementation of maternal health evidence products. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;76:229–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.02.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Government of Malawi. Standards for Improving the Quality of Care for Children in Malawi. In: Ministry of Health & Population, editor. Lilongwe, Malawi 2020.
  • 56.Gondwe MJ, Joshua E, Kaliati H, Aminu M, Allen S, Desmond N. Factors impacting—stillbirth and neonatal death audit in Malawi: a qualitative study. BMC health services research. 2022;22(1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001333.r001

Decision Letter 0

Julia Robinson

10 Aug 2022

PGPH-D-22-00596

Resource availability and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns in health facilities in the southern region of Malawi: a multisite observational study

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Gondwe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please note that we have only been able to secure reviewers to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of these reviews if possible.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is very well written and organized. The topic area is important and practical. It is also very timely with the recent publication and dissemination of the new standards for sick and small newborn care as well as investment and interest in the health and survival of these vulnerable infants. This paper captures important information on the transition from policy to practice. I have a number of suggestions below that I think could strengthen this paper and highlight more concretely its added value. Thank you for conducting and writing up this work.

INTRODUCTION

- It would be helpful to provide a bit more context on what other related work has been done in Malawi and what gap this study fills / what is the added value. A couple studies worth looking at and discussing if you have not already: Kwaza 2020 BMC Health Services Research, Leslie 2016 PLoS, etc.

RESULTS

- Summary: In the summary you note that an ambulance is available as a positive but throughout this is noted as a barrier. I suggest that you move this to the second paragraph of the discussion as refer to it as a barrier.

- I think it is important to mention that you have not looked into all aspects of the standards and why. For example, you do not discuss health information systems, demand side pieces, respectful care, etc.

DISCUSSION

- Infrastructure: You say that there are inconsistencies with the WHO standards. Can you please elaborate a bit more on what those differences are to help the reader connect the standards with your data without having to reference the standards themselves? It would be good to have a short section summarizing the key standards relevant to this work somewhere in the paper and/or referencing them in a figure/table together or separate from the information gathered as part of this study.

- Transport and communication: You write “The hospitals were compliant with the adapted standards having either a mobile phone, 263 landline or radio that functions all times.” However, in the results, you noted that “All hospitals had at least one functional landline telephone or mobile 165 phone at all times except hospitals 1 and 6, where the mobile phone was not always 166 available for use.” Please make sure these are consistent.

- Transport and communication: The last sentence – in the WHO standards? Where?

- How are these facilities generalizable to others in different regions in Malawi?

- Can you please explain some of the potential reasons behind the differences between health facilities?

- What about financial aspects and what role they plan in all of this?

Reviewer #2: The authors have written a concise description of the readiness among a sample of hospitals in southern Malawi to provide essential newborn care. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and the study is robust in having used a standard tool adapted to Malawi to measure readiness, one which apparently was used in other related QI work in Malawi. The team has used some strong data visualizations to synthesize a range of data, however there are areas where a reader is still left not quite sure of the results. The paper is important in further adding to the evidence of the need to translate policy into resources needed as a first step to ensuring quality and equitable care. As such, I had a number of suggestions which I believe would strengthen the manuscript and its value to the broader community working to improve outcomes for newborns and reduce still births

Introduction

The authors describe the work by WHO establishing standards and a process for improvement. For someone less fluent, it would be helpful to use a few sentences to detail the guidance and the 7 steps. This will also help interpret the results in the broader context. Similarly, any existing data on hospital (and health center) readiness from Malawi would frame this study, as well as patterns of care including FBD, post-natal care and any insights into timing and causes of neonatal deaths in Malawi (ex. In-hospital versus post-discharge) as well as any data from the audits described. They also describe an additional area of CHWs, but this is not assessed nor discussed.

Methods:

It was interesting that the survey was done during COVID-19-what if any impact and /or precautions were taken?

It was also a little unclear why these were chosen and why HCs (who likely encounter significant stillbirth and need to transfer sick young infants). This also needs to be in the limitations

Did the survey also capture C-section capacity as an important approach to reduce stillbirths? What were the components for managing sick- young infants (I saw CPAP, KMC support? Feeding?

Results

The results are details and a bit more information would be helpful for a reader. Many of the results are described qualitative, requiring looking at the table or appendix. Adding in some numbers/range to the text would be helpful (ex. Essential supplies). Similarly, when the term “sometimes” is used, need to define in methods what that means (anything between none and always?)-particularly for Table 2

In table 1-some measure of volume would help understand the workload by hospital. It would also be helpful to have the number as well as % for positions filled (and was this overall versus larger or smaller gaps in some areas?

Why were only 3 district hospitals allocated ambulances? This should be discussed in the discussion. Also, I did not see anything about functioning of the referral system (both to and from the hospitals) beyond ambulance and phone availability. Were there metrics in the adapted survey which asked about things like counter referrals or feedback?

Similarly-since hospital 6 combined their post-natal ward-I was confused why authors did not assess the combined ward for both competencies and staffing since PNC was being delivered

Did any of the hospitals have a specific area for sick and LBW infants (even if not officially a NICU?

Table 2 is a nice way to visualize data. Is that any versus none?

The training gaps are well noted, but the standard is not discussed until in discussion. It would be helpful to have in an appendix (or noted in the text) what is the standard, so a reader knows in results where there are gaps. IN the discussion As the authors point out, there were gaps in required CPD (although also limited if any evidence on impact), What dd the MOH supervisors do?

For supplies, Why is oxytocin needed in neonatal ward? Was there no HCT but full blood count? Was bilirubin available through sending out?

Were there any summary scores for the areas measured and specifically for care of sick young infants (some emerging approaches for this)

Discussion

The authors have a nice description of the findings, but I would like to see a bit more digging into why and possible solutions from the growing work and literature to improve neonatal care in Malawi (ex. Makonde, NEST) and the region.

Some specific comments:

P20 they note that clinicians were not always available during night shift-was this across all 3 areas? What was their workload?

See comment above about CPD. The sentence calling for more studies of CPD on outcomes seems odd given the extensive evidence that training and retraining alone is not effective but must include supportive supervision (see Rowe)

On page 22, they have a bit if a value comparison with Ethiopia and a systematic review -It would be good to have a bit more granularity-what was similar and different at the hospital level? Any insights into variability between the surveyed hospitals (this does need more discussion)

The section on p22 on supervision is a nice background on why it is important, but no discussion on what the MOH does, and what the findings in Malawi compare with other published work

I was curious the reasoning behind a larger survey needed, versus one with plans and resources to address the gaps. I was also interested in who the community components could be measured (as I think it was not in the modified SARA)

I would add to the limitations that observation/delivery of care was not included (see Das et al for the gap between inputs and delivery) and no data on the community components nor on the QI. I think also missing is How to understand the readiness needed to prevent still birth and where that overlaps and differs for neonatal (in hospital and post discharge)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001333.r003

Decision Letter 1

Julia Robinson

8 Nov 2022

Resource availability and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns in health facilities in the southern region of Malawi: a multisite observational study

PGPH-D-22-00596R1

Dear Mrs Gondwe,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Resource availability and barriers to delivering quality care for newborns in health facilities in the southern region of Malawi: a multisite observational study' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Julia Robinson

Executive Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a through job in responding to comments which has significantly improved the paper. My only minor suggestion is making clear the level of facilities this paper is addressing in the title (hospital) as this does not include health centers

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. Inclusivity in global health.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. Health facility resource survey tool.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Standards of care and quality statements.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Total ambulances by facility.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Training of clinicians and nurses.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Number of stockout days in the preceding month of essential supplies and drugs in pharmacy.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES