Author response
To Mary Anne Mercer
Introduction: The aims of the study are to “…learn from the efforts…to maintain quality
EHS” (p 1) as well as to “understand the variance in service utilization, including the best
practices in improving maternal mortality and SBA.” That leads the reader to expect
proposed answers to these questions in the conclusion, which didn’t happen.
Thank you for your feedback on this important point. The data shows that there were improvements in maternal and child health, but not in general primary health services. So, the overall aim is to understand the preparedness activities or lack there of took place in TLS as a comparison to the efforts taken to maintain maternal/child health service.
The objective has been reworded: ‘This case study examines the enabling factors, strengths, challenges and lessons learned from Timor-Leste (TLS) as it sought to maintain quality essential health services (EHS) during the COVID-19 pandemic.’
Methods: Extensive discussion of methods leaves a few important gaps, such as
ages/genders of the few community informants.
The table of documents reviewed could be in an appendix. Thank you for your feedback on this. This was an area that the authors had discussed extensively, and we had originally included both gender and age, but had decided to remove this for the protection of interviewees upon several of their request.
Results: A lot of useful results are presented, but some areas need more explanation.
For example, we learn about the “Twinning Partnership for Improvement” (TPI) that seems
to have a substantial effort on efforts to continue or improve quality. That entity was not
well described and could potentially add a lot to an understanding of what happened to
services during the pandemic. How important was the role of other partners? Were they a
factor explaining why maternal care services performed better than general outpatient
services?
Thank you for this feedback. We have clarified the usefulness of the TPI in the discussion section. It now reads: ‘To maintain quality EHS, planning for quality must be proactively considered across all levels in service delivery packages, municipal health offices and health facilities (44). While the national level sets the priorities, municipal health offices and facilities need to participate in strategic quality planning for implementation to minimize the interoperability gap (47). As such, the authors recommend for countries to consider aligning quality planning and learning systems throughout the health system to be better prepared to maintain quality EHS (44, 47). For example, by involving all three levels of the health system, the activities taken by the maternal and child health program during COVID-19 may have contributed towards minimizing the interoperability gap. The program leaders took an integrated approach to quality by developing national guidance, disseminating, and orientating that guidance to the municipal and facility levels, while also promoting healthy behaviors in the community. Another example is the TPI, which planned quality activities through a learning system between the national, municipal and facility levels and then later shared their lessons learned in implementing IPC improvements during COVID-19 to other municipalities (33, 48). This approach had impact on a referral hospital 18 months later, which helped reduce neonatal sepsis.’
Table 4 shows the ongoing support which was provided by partners, which is can have great impact if done in alignment with the national strategic plans We have also clarified this in the discussion: ‘To better prepare health systems to maintain quality EHS during a public health emergency, the analysis highlighted several key recommendations from TLS that may be of benefit to other countries. First, developing national level strategy and/or policy for quality will set the foundation for the national quality priorities (46). From here, national leaders can inform stakeholders, national and international agencies, and all health systems levels of the quality priorities. For example, table 4 shows that several health partners in TLS had ongoing activities that are supporting quality service delivery before and during COVID-19. Ensuring alignment of these partners to the national quality priorities can greatly contribute towards maintaining quality EHS during any future health emergency.’
The large Table 4 is useful but lacks some important information. Given the decrease in infacility maternal mortality cases – what are the data on overall maternal mortality? Health
facilities have some information on home deliveries, which are an important risk for
mortality. Were no infant mortality data available?
Thank you for this important feedback. Table 4 is ‘intended to show a mapping between WHO Primary health care measurement framework and indicators (34), the Donabedian Framework (35) and available data in TLS, which was collected from partners, MOH programs, and health facilities. The WHO Primary health care (PHC) framework highlights that health worker density and distribution, and existing policies for example, are health service determinants which reflect the capacity of PHC services. The framework also includes health service delivery indicators (eg. processes and outputs) that may impact health system objectives (outcomes). While the WHO PHC framework monitors progress and performance in PHC, the Donabedian Framework accounts for quality at all levels of care, including secondary and tertiary. Efforts to maintain quality in TLS are highlighted in this table and show quality-focused data before and during COVID-19 that was supported by MOH programs, CQAH and partners. For example, as part of the national direction on quality, TLS had given particular attention to water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and IPC practices prior to COVID-19, which could have had some impact on maintaining quality EHS. Table 4 also helped direct the authors to formulate the KII questionnaires to better understand what contributed to improved maternal and child health services and outcomes verses the decrease in outpatient, emergency department, and primary care service visits.’ All available data on maternal and child health was included in the table, as it relates to the maintenance of essential health services
Another important issue is identifying what happened, if anything, to health staff availability
during the pandemic. In many countries, health worker numbers were substantially
decreased because of COVID illness. Those data would be very useful for Table 4.
Also, at the bottom of p 7, an FGD participant mentions “worried…about being sent to a
COVID-19 treatment center” as a reason for not using health services. That sounds like a
fear of being required to go somewhere for treatment? Would be good to clarify.
Thank you for this useful comment and we agree with the reviewer. However, up to date health worker data was not available during COVID-19. We have listed health worker distribution and density as a health system determinate in table 4, which serves as an indication for how well the health system is equipped to support through health workers. We have revised table 4 to make the objective of table 4 stronger and more apparent.
Conclusion: This section is particularly unhelpful in summarizing the results of the case
study. It’s essentially a review of what the country should do in the future, rather than what
was learned--what the study found had happened during the pandemic. Summarizing a few
key findings would be helpful, in areas such as the role of partners, the factors that led to
even better maternal care use during the pandemic, or other factors that helped or
hindered service provision during the pandemic at the three levels studied. Then the
conclusion as to how to use that information for the future would be more meaningful.
Thank you. We have revised the conclusion and it now reads: ‘Maintaining quality EHS is a continuous process that must be considered in health emergency preparedness planning. By setting national level priorities in quality, stakeholders, national and international agencies, and all health facilities can align quality service delivery activities, particularly when resources are strained. Integrating quality planning into preparedness plans can bring awareness and accountability to health systems leaders to ensure that quality EHS will be maintained, while also empowering facility staff to continue advocating for quality during a public health emergency.
This study is a snapshot of quality EHS in TLS during the COVID-19 pandemic and the analysis identified approaches and recommendations that may be of benefit to other countries. Even though more knowledge is needed on how to operationalize plans for maintaining quality EHS, this learning can support countries towards better quality planning for public health emergencies.’
To Supriya Mathew
The paper is well written and discusses an important topic that is also of future use. The study documents the experiences of the Timor-Leste health system as it sought to maintain
quality essential health services (EHS) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sentence –“ no patients were involved in the recruitment…” page 6 is confusing.
Thank you for this feedback and we agree. We have since deleted and provided an updated statement.
“No patients were involved in the recruitment to conduct the study or directly involved in the design of this study. The study will be made available to all participants and shared directly with MOH, municipal health departments and health facilities involved.”
Page 12 -the paper mentions that there was a decrease in service utilization- were there any
quotes from the community/patient category that could be added below it?
Thank you for this comment. We have included the following:
Table 4 also revealed a large decrease in OPD and emergency room visits (HNGV only). To understand the decrease in service utilization by community members, KIIs revealed that patients were not visiting emergency departments and OPD largely related to the
“Lack of trust [in the health system].” [Municipal level, KII participant],
“Increased fear [of the hospital].” [Facility level, FGD participant],
When probed further about their ‘lack of trust’ or ‘increased fear’, participants described family and community members, not going to the hospital because they were:
“Worried about being sent to a COVID-19 treatment centre [if becoming COVID-19 positive]” [Facility level, FGD participant].
“Essential Health Services did not work properly during COVID-19 because all staff focused on COVID-19. Chronic patients did not take their medications and they died as a result. Taxi and bus services were not running so patients could not afford to get to the hospitals for treatment.” [Facility level, KII participant]
Page 13 suddenly mentions one family member, is the quote from a community member?
Were there any differences between rural and urban quality of care?
Thank you for this reflection. The quote is from a community member. We have revised to clarify: One family member said:
‘The IPC used to be great and implemented in all health facilities, but the consciousness is decreased, we can see limit of PPE and there is no social distance among health workers, and patients with health workers. This makes us not want to come’ [Facility level, KII participant]
Another family member stated:
“[My family member] has been here since morning at 10 am, however [they] did not get clinical care until 08.00 pm. After that [they] got clinical care by putting infusion.” [Facility level, KII participant]
We did not call out urban verses rural in health facilities as the capitol of Dili is mainly the urban populations and the other municipalities are largely rural.
Table 1: year of publication has been mentioned, could it be categorised into pre during
and post COVID publications
Thank you for your feedback. This is a fine point. Will consider marking with an asterisk those documents that were post COVID 19.
Table 4:
• Data has been provided only from 2019 onwards; is data available for at least 3 years
before the COVID period?
This has been considered. We have since updated the table to make the objective of the table more clear.
May be add one more column to indicate insufficient data for comparison between
years?
Thank you for the suggestion. The point of the table is not really to compare data as such, although it has been helpful to understand what services were ongoing during covid 19 verses which were not. A main objective of the table is understand what data is available to support ongoing quality activities. We have clarified the objectives of the table:
‘Developed during the document review, table 4 shows a mapping between WHO Primary health care measurement framework and indicators (34), the Donabedian Framework (35) and available data in TLS, which was collected from partners, MOH programs, and health facilities. The WHO Primary health care (PHC) framework highlights that health worker density and distribution, and existing policies for example, are health service determinants which reflect the capacity of PHC services. The framework also includes health service delivery indicators (eg. processes and outputs) that may impact health system objectives (outcomes) (see Figure 1).
While the WHO PHC framework monitors progress and performance in PHC, the Donabedian Framework accounts for quality at all levels of care, including secondary and tertiary. Efforts to maintain quality in TLS are highlighted in this table and show quality-focused data before and during COVID-19 that was supported by MOH programs, CQAH and partners. For example, as part of the national direction on quality, TLS had given particular attention to water sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and IPC practices prior to COVID-19, which could have had some impact on maintaining quality EHS. Table 4 also helped direct the authors to formulate the KII questionnaires to better understand what contributed to improved maternal and child health services and outcomes verses the decrease in outpatient, emergency department, and primary care service visits.’
The paper mentions that the patient satisfaction improved as per patient satisfaction
survey. How were the surveys administered (e.g. online)? Were the sample sizes
across each years comparable?
The sample sizes are comparable, and the surveys are administered in written format at the health facility.