From purists to pragmatists: a qualitative evaluation of how implementation processes and contexts shaped the uptake and methodological adaptations of a maternal and neonatal quality improvement programme in South Africa prior to, and during COVID-19

Abstract

Abstract Background Despite progress, maternal and neonatal mortality and still births remain high in South Africa. The South African National Department of Health implemented a quality improvement (QI) programme, called Mphatlalatsane, to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and still births. It was implemented in 21 public health facilities, seven per participating province, between 2018 and 2022. Methods We conducted a qualitative process evaluation of the contextual and implementation process factors’ influence on implementation uptake amongst the QI teams in 15 purposively selected facilities. Data collection included three interview rounds with the leaders and members of the QI teams in each facility; intermittent interviews with the QI advisors; programme documentation review; observation of programme management meetings; and keeping a fieldwork journal. All data were thematically analysed in Atlas.ti. Implementation uptake varied across the three provinces and between facilities within provinces. Results Between March and August 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted uptake in all provinces but affected QI teams in one province more severely than others, because they received limited pre-pandemic training. Better uptake among other sites was attributed to receiving more QI training pre-COVID-19, having an experienced QI advisor, and good teamwork. Uptake was more challenging amongst hospital teams which had more staff and more complicated MNH services, versus the primary healthcare facilities. We also attributed better uptake to greater district management support. A key factor shaping uptake was leaders’ intrinsic motivation to apply QI methodology. We found that, across sites, organic adaptations to the QI methodology were made by teams, started during COVID-19. Teams did away with rapid testing of change ideas and keeping a paper trail of the steps followed. Though still using data to identify service problems, they used self-developed audit tools to record intervention effectiveness, and not the prescribed tools. Conclusions Our study underscores the critical role of intrinsic motivation of team leaders, support from experienced technical QI advisors, and context-sensitive adaptations to maximise QI uptake when traditionally recognised QI steps cannot be followed.