Table 2.
Performance trends in malaria diagnostic and clinical case management processes, assessment 1 vs. assessment 4
| OTSS assessment 1 vs. assessment 2 | OTSS assessment 2 vs. assessment 3 | OTSS assessment 3 vs. assessment 4 | OTSS assessment 1 vs. assessment 4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HF No. | Ref (%) | Mean Diff | HF No. | Ref (%) | Mean Diff | HF No. | Ref (%) | Mean Diff | HF No. | Ref (%) | Mean diff | |
| Malaria diagnostics | ||||||||||||
| RDT use | 28 | 74.0 | 9.6** | 36 | 80.8 | 0.5 | 52 | 80.5 | 7.2** | 43 | 74.1 | 14.3*** |
| Blood slide preparation | 45 | 68.4 | 9.1** | 44 | 76.4 | 0.3 | 51 | 76.0 | 4.0 | 51 | 65.2 | 14.7*** |
| Blood slide staining/reading | 50 | 69.0 | 0.7 | 46 | 69.0 | 2.3 | 50 | 74.1 | 4.3 | 51 | 66.3 | 14.0*** |
| Clinical case management | ||||||||||||
| Fever case management | 51 | 77.5 | − 7.0** | 50 | 69.6 | *6.9 | 57 | 76.0 | 7.6** | 57 | 76.2 | 7.3** |
| Prescriber adherencea | 18 | 68.3 | 11.6 | 19 | 80.9 | − 3.8 | 60 | 70.6 | 14.0** | 61 | 77.2 | 7.2* |
HF health facility, No number, Ref reference (beginning score for each t test scenario), Mean Diff mean differences from paired t-tests were calculated to characterize performance gains in mean scores from one assessment to the next and from OTSS assessment 1 to assessment 4
*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
aDue to logistical issues during the 2nd OTSS assessment, prescriber adherence was minimally evaluated by clinical supervisors