Health workers’ Perspective on the Feasibility and Acceptability of the Introduction of AgRDT for COVID-19 in Kisumu County, Western Kenya

Study Setup and Population

The PPP is a collaboration between Kisumu County DoH, Kenya Medical Research Institute/Center for Global Health Research (KEMRI/CGHR) in Kisumu, PharmAccess Foundation and selected healthcare facilities in Kisumu East and Central Sub counties. Health care workers were interviewed to get their perspectives on the use of AgRDT. There were six participating health facilities both private and public (Table 1)

Study design and procedures

Research design adopted the Grounded Theory qualitative design. In-Depth (IDIs) Interviews were used for data collection. A total of 23 health workers were selected from the 6 participating facilities consisting of 2 public and 4 private health facilities: 2 of them being run under the Mission. The criteria for choosing the participating facilities were mainly categorized into two: essential and non-essential criteria. The essential criteria for private facilities include: provider should have a license, permission by DoH to participate in the COVID-AgRDT project, reasonable patient throughput and proven ability to detect positive COVID-19 cases, a working and serviced fridge and generator for sample storage, willingness of qualified lab staff to be trained for AgRDTs and willingness of management to participate in COVID-AgRDT project. The criteria for public facilities was based on those proposed by DoH to participate in the study. Some considerations for participation of proposed public hospitals included referral and county hospitals with reasonable patient throughput and proven ability to detect positive COVID-19 cases, willingness of qualified lab staff to be trained for AgRDTs and willingness of health facility in-charges to participate in COVID-AgRDT project Purposive sampling method was applied for the selection of participants for the IDIs by both study staff and facility-based team leads. The health workers consisted of laboratory technicians, clinical officers, nursing officers, and psychosocial counsellors who are involved in COVID-19 related activities in the health facilities.

Protection of human participants

Selection of participants were done using purposive sampling technique. Interview appointments were made by the study staff through both emails and phone calls. Consent to contact the participants was obtained verbally. Thereafter, written consents and participants’ demographic information were obtained prior to conducting of the interviews.

The interviews were conducted within the health facilities on varying locations like private rooms with observance of confidentiality and privacy codes. The benefits of participation in the study was contributing to the evaluation of the AgRDT kit. In addition, there were provision of transport reimbursement to ease the burden of expenditure from the participant. The risk were participants not being comfortable o respond to some of the question which was mitigated by giving them options to respond to the questions they were comfortable with.

Ethical approvals and consent to participate

The Jaramogi Oginga Odinga Teaching and Referral Hospital (JOOTRH): Institution and Ethical Review Committee provided research and ethical approval with license number IERC.IBlVOL.tt/3SS/20. Additional research and ethical approval was provided by the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) with License Number ABS/P/20/7959. All participants and selected health facilities provided written consents to participate in the study

Data collection and analysis

Data collection was done by trained interviewers using open-ended interview guide which was designed to elicit responses on Private Public collaborative responses, and experiences with COVID AgRDT services as a way of getting their perspective on its feasibility and acceptability. The interviews were conducted in either English, Swahili or Luo. Data from the IDIs were audio recorded and transcribed in a verbatim form. Proof reading was done on the transcribed data to ensure quality transcription. Interpretation of the data was done thematically using Nvivo 11 software. This involved the development of the codebook and the scripts imported into Nvivo 11. Coding was done by two independent coders with intercoder reliability performed followed by generation of reports. Quality checks right from data collection to data analysis were appropriate in terms of credibility and confirmability.

Staff workload

On the aspect of staff workload, the healthcare workers, both public and private were contented with AgRDT’s capacity to reduce patient congestion and staff work overload. Through the adoption of AgRDT these facilities were now able to provide customer-friendly COVID AgRDT services.

“We complement each other. So, it is about having as system where when we are overwhelmed, we can send patients to them (To mean public facilities) and they can send patients to us. This happens especially in this pandemic like where our ICU capacity is quite limited. So, where we don’t have that capacity, we transfer some patients to them and vice versa.” IDI 006 A, H/W 4

Availability of kits

In addition, both sectors complemented each other through borrowing test kits in cases where either of the participating health facilities had experience a high turnover of test demands.

The usage of AgRDT made it possible to have activities around Contact tracing, referrals in cases where the isolation and quarantine rooms were fully occupied easily operational.

“We also have same catchment areas, so we more or less experience same challenges in COVID. Sometimes we get overwhelming numbers, so we refer our patients or transfer to them (To mean public health facilities).” IDI 006 A, H/W 4

Healthcare systems

The introduction of the usage of the AgRDT kits came with a well-received capacity building of both private and public health facilities, involving provision of PPEs, on-the-job sample collection and testing training and interpretation of AgRDT kit results.

“Yeah, we exchange knowledge; because you can consult where you don’t understand. And we also exchange materials; in-case we don’t have enough materials; we can borrow from the public. And then in cases that we maybe have a special case that needs to be done like urgently, we sometimes refer to the public.” IDI 016 F, H/W 12

The pre- and post-test counselling that was offered to the patient during the COVID AgRDT service provision helped with preparing and informing the patient of what was expected throughout the process. The role of the psychosocial counsellor was considered key, both for motivating a patient to get tested and later during the delivery of the patient results.

“My take is that we need, like what was lacking, we need to make sure that the patient is well informed because they come in for now testing. Like the time of counselling, they need to be told. You know like what was coming out the time of taking the sample, now you have to explain again to the patient. But I was thinking if the patient is well informed on what is going to be done during sample collection, I think they could understand more and cooperate well.” DI 26 E, H/W 20

Cost implications

The introduction of the usage of COVID AgRDT kit came with relief on the cost of conducting COVID-19 test. The private facilities participating in the study were not allowed to ask for any charges of the COVID-19 testing, only the general consultation fees an experience which went well. The respondents noted that the method was cheap, and affordable as compared to the COVID19 PCR testing. In addition, it required no machines and electricity and it could be performed in-house at the point-of-care.

“It is cheaper as compared with the PCR. You know PCR needs the machine with you, the person, though the RDT you also need the person. For PCR you need the machine itself, the machine will need a reagent to run it and then let me say when the machine breaks down you have to maintain the machine. But the RDT you don’t need to maintain the machine.” IDI 02 B, H/W 2

“I think it looks fairly easy to use because with minimal trainings, you don’t need any other additional machines to use it because it has an in-built control. And so, there’s no need for transportation of samples. Certainly, it’s much better because we can do it in-house, and we can do it bedside.” IDI 06 A, H/W 04

Challenges in discrepant results

However, the health workers noted scenarios with discrepant results when confirmatory COVID-19 PCR test was done. Although the operating procedures of AgRDT clearly included informing the participants about the pro’s and the cons of a rapid test, this not always transpired. In particular (false-)negative AgRDT results, followed the next day by a positive PCR created confusion.

“It is not easy. Because at first, let’s say the RDT is positive, then you have counselled this patient and you have told him this one is positive and then the following day you give him another different report. So it is not something normal. But that is not bad as such. The difficult part comes when the RDT is negative, and then the PCR comes as positive. Convincing somebody that this result is a bit different, he starts querying: Are we doing the right thing, or what is wrong?” IDI 002 B, H/W 2

Communication challenges

The respondents noted lack of proper communication channels to reemphasize the standard operating procedures of sample collection. Some facilities were collecting single nasal pharyngeal swabs while others were collecting double nasal pharyngeal swabs; some facilities first did PCR sampling and then AgRDT, others the other way round. This brought some differences in results and concomitant misunderstandings.

“As far as we have gone with this COVID-19 program, the only challenge that we are experiencing is miscommunication and that was only in the first stages. For example, some facilities were not doing the procedure the right way. We saw that as a challenge. Like some facilities were not getting enough in terms of capacity building.” IDI 07 A, H/W 5

“Another challenge is communication barrier. Sometimes you can make a phone call, you find somebody at the public facility maybe is not in, will refer you to another person. So, you’ll go round before you get assistance as maybe you required.” IDI 21 D, H/W 16 Some respondents noted that the consenting process was good, however it was long and very much time consuming.

“Actually, you had to take the client through the session and then the client consent and then that is when the client is ready to be taken for the sample. So I can also say this is another challenge, because it takes a lot of time. Just taking the client through all these until the client accepts and understand that is when you will be able to go on” IDI 17 F, H/W 13