‘Involve those, who are managing these outbreaks’– Identifying barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical management guidelines for High-Consequence Infectious Diseases in Uganda

CMG Content & Updating

A range of barriers related to CMG content and updates were discussed (e.g., standardization of patient care, guideline availability and updating, inclusivity of guidelines and difficulties adapting guidelines to local settings). The importance of CMGs for standardisation was frequently highlighted to reduce negative patient outcomes, increase shared understanding, reduce HCP anxiety about infectious disease work and equalise “varied levels of expertise [and] not all units [being] equally equipped” (CM6). However, CMG implementation appeared undermined by the applicability of guidelines and the attempt to standardise care across Uganda. Many participants therefore shared a sense that while guidelines developed for high income countries were difficult to convert to resource-constrained healthcare facilities, Ugandan CMGs were developed with little input of local stakeholders able to adapt guidelines to available local resources, e.g., “if we are to have guidelines which can be useful, then we should tailor them to the local context of what is happening in Uganda” (MP4) and “our local teams [need to be] involved because they are the ones who are managing these outbreaks” (CM3). Reluctance to use CMGs if they are not applicable to their setting was repeatedly described as reason for improvising patient care in accordance with locally available resources.

Similarly, CMGs were not equally inclusive of patient groups, with COVID-19 guidelines – due to the large amount of evidence-based guidance from international bodies – perceived as both inclusive of different at-risk patient groups (e.g., HIV/immunocompromised, pregnant women, children, elderly) and frequently updated to incorporate advances in changing evidence on pathogens and therapeutics. In contrast, CMGs for FVDs were reported as requiring more inclusivity: “In West Africa [outbreak], we tried to develop guidelines for children. […] but the guidelines we were using were not sufficient to cover vulnerable groups especially children, pregnant women, elderly and people with disabilities. So, we were just cramping everyone together” (MP9).

Many participants felt therefore that too much emphasis was put on international research in CMG development and not enough inclusion of local evidence, despite local personnel often encountering a changing case presentation first.

“They used to call it the Viral Haemorrhagic Fever, because there was a lot of people either bleeding, or passing out blood in stool, or they are vomiting blood but when it came to the West African Ebola, we could not see much, and […so] we [now] call it Ebola Virus Disease (EVD)” (TM1).

Participants routinely emphasised the importance of CMGs being guided by existing evidence and research collated in Uganda, which would not only enable rapid integration of new knowledge regarding symptomatology or treatments into existing guidance, but also lead to increased utilisation of CMGs by staff (see Figure 1).

Pandemic Preparedness & Response

Participants frequently discussed overall pandemic preparedness and response, highlighting the importance of collaboration across pillars and the inclusion of the community to increase preparedness, e.g., “When there is an outbreak, all pillars work together to respond; there is a lot of coordination and working together as a team” (TM3). Nevertheless, logistical issues around surveillance and testing were discussed. For example, while surveillance infrastructure was better for COVID-19, lack of laboratories able to process FVD samples located at national level reportedly resulted in frequent diagnostic delays, e.g., “for Ebola we could not even recognize until someone takes another few days to take the samples to Kampala, […] we must have a system of taking samples from one point to another” (MP17).

Many identified the lack of adherence to guidelines in the population, which hinders the effective response to outbreaks. For example, “[Because of] religion and cultural beliefs, you find the community refusing that there is Ebola, they refuse to come to hospital, they report late [and] health workers also believe that their religion doesn’t allow them to perform some rituals” (TM3). Similarly, participants routinely described that lack of pandemic preparedness, reluctance to engage with scientific information, and low medical literacy in the population alongside widespread misperceptions, myths, conspiracy theories and stigma (e.g., ‘witchcraft’, ‘government harvesting organ’ or ‘killing people to access natural resources’) impeded their ability to implement guidelines and carry out their job. For example, “we had to withdraw because […] they want to beat you [when] they see you taking the dead body, [saying] ‘you have killed our relative because you want money’ (MP3). Considering these issues, the lack of templates for public health messaging during outbreaks alongside CMGs, which enable HCP to integrate community leaders, patients’ relatives and the population were discussed as problematic.

“Updates would be for everyone, the case management team, the health workers who are not part of the case management, the village health teams, even the community to create awareness. If everybody is aware and such an outbreak comes again, everybody would be on standby and it wouldn’t take us or kill us the way it did previously” (MP5).

The overlap between this thematic topic is visualised in Figure 1, showing the connection of ‘Social & Societal factors’, ‘healthcare system’, ‘patient outcomes’, ‘public health messaging’, and ‘pandemic preparedness’.

CMG Dissemination and Training

Availability of CMGs was reportedly patchy, with more frequently occurring, or internationally prioritised, HCIDs (e.g., Ebola disease and COVID-19) being prioritised over less frequent HCIDs, e.g., “For Marburg there was little apart from checking the internet, so […] when we were confronted […] I based [treatment] on the old knowledge [from] seven years earlier” (MP19). Logistical factors (e.g., scarcity of print copies, limited internet access and limited training for HCP) were emphasised as limiting CMG implementation. Many described that HCP often were unaware of guidelines, describing challenges accessing guidelines, associated with slow and patchy dissemination and limited announcements, e.g., “They have not yet shared them and all of a sudden you come and land on the book about the new guideline on the internet by chance” (MP7). Rural healthcare facilities lacked printed copies and frequently could not access online sources, which reportedly curtailed effective communication across healthcare facilities, access to health records, dissemination of guidelines and attendance of virtual seminars.

“[In] lower-level facilities […] you rarely get the Filovirus guidelines […]. Dissemination is really a big problem, [especially as] the common venue where we have these outbreaks is more in the rural areas where the human being interfaces with the wild population and that’s where you’re going to get the lowest level of health centres. We tend to concentrate at the big facility level while this should be going down there, and from down there it goes upwards” (TM4).

Alongside dissemination problems and lack of internet access, lack of applied training in HCID care was discussed as a central issue, e.g., “lack of knowledge [because] people are not fully trained and if trainings are not practical, they will never get skills” (MP21). The lack of applied training on guidelines and dedicated platforms to access them were also attributed to colleagues seeking false information and consequently applying questionable treatments of COVID-19 with repurposed therapeutics (e.g., ivermectin; hydroxychloroquine) even after their use was warned against by the WHO, CDC and the Ugandan MoH guidelines.

“There should be practical sessions and continuous follow up of training outcomes […] if you just come for a week and train people, let’s say on how to manage EVD, tomorrow if someone is faced with a patient, they will fail to manage electrolyte balance. Not because they don’t know, but because they did not have a practical session, and no continuous mentorship” (MP4).

Lack of training was not only associated with adherence to guidelines and standards of care but also with heightened fear and anxiety, with many participants describing a reluctance to work on the frontline due to lack of training. Conversely, training was reported to increase confidence and self-efficacy, suggesting that this would lead to better implementation of CMGs, e.g., “before training, I was worried; but […] the training really increases your level of confidence; it improves you and you perform well” (MP22). Figure 1 and 2 illustrate that most participants discussed ‘Barriers’ alongside ‘HCP training’ and ‘Access & Dissemination’, and ‘Change and Update of CMGs’.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Overview of codes sharing most references with Barriers and challenges to the implementation of CMGs (adjacency and thickness of links). Lift <1.2 Edgeweight< 10; Fruchterman layout.

Healthcare Disparities, resource constraints, and limited utilisation

Problems with resourcing and utilisation were often discussed alongside issues involving the Ugandan healthcare system. Many highlighted the urban/ rural divide in the healthcare system, whereby severe cases are transferred to dedicated regional hospitals able to monitor oxygen, fluid and electrolyte balance, dialysis, etc., while lower-level rural facilities had none of these.

“When it comes to urban versus rural though, there are some things that apply in urban setting that may not apply in the rural setting, e.g., a patient who develops a complication while at home, can easily be evacuated to the facility in an urban setting, but in the rural setting, means of transport are so scarce that it may not work there” (MP2).

Participants acknowledged a discrepancy between nationally adopted guidelines and the regulatory and logistical realities on the ground, which limit universal CMG implementation, e.g., “having guidelines [is one thing] but having the resources to buy what the guidelines recommend is another one” (TM2). The universal implementation of CMGs reportedly is further inhibited by differences between private and public healthcare facilities, where private facilities may distribute therapeutics more quickly or instate different infection prevention and control (IPC) measures.

In the private sector, there was a lot of resistance […] we discovered that there were some [expensive] drugs that had not been recommended to treat COVID 19, but they were using it and not adhering to our guidelines […]. We also had instances where clinics were reusing PPE, coveralls which were supposed to be single uses […they] sprayed it with chlorine on the outside and put it out to dry and then reused it.” (TM2).

Lack of resources was recurrently associated with increased infection risk and mortality, e.g., “if the person doesn’t have masks, they won’t be safe, […if] they go and operate an Ebola case – like what happened in Mubende [in Nov 2022] – then they get infected” (TM3). Similarly, lack of HCP posed a barrier for the implementation of CMGs, leading to issues in providing supportive care and upholding IPC protocols.

“One [issue] is human resources, if people are many, guidelines can be followed to the dot, but if people are few, certain things are forgotten, e.g., they say you’re not supposed to spend [more than] one hour in the PPE when you enter the ETU, but [if] you have 20 patients […] you end [up] extending [and] risking yourself (MP21).

For many, HCP shortage was most frequently attributed to lack of knowledge, experience, or preparedness, leading to unwillingness of HCP to work on the frontline during outbreaks, e.g., “they fear to go and attack such a deadly disease without such knowledge” (CP7). The intersection between access to guidelines, lack of resources and HCP’s ability to adhere to guidelines was most evocative in this reflection:

“Implementation is a different thing [as] the health workers knew what to do, [if] they didn’t do, it was because of lack of adequate infrastructure; particularly for critical care, [it was] an issue both in terms of human expertise and also infrastructure” (CM6).

Nevertheless, participants in more senior positions highlighted that existing guidelines and resources are often insufficient for improving CMG adherence, e.g., “I […] found a nurse drawing blood with bare hands, no gloves [though] on the trolley were gloves, [so…] we have these guidelines but for some reasons they are not being followed [and] that’s why health workers in ETU and CTUs die” (TM5). Several participants attributed this to a general “poor reading culture – in Uganda we don’t read” (MP21), which may result in attempts to improvise care, e.g., “if they don’t read on their own, they won’t know what to do, they will try to manage on their own and then get infected” (TM2). However, others associated non-adherence with a lack of understanding of “how serious the condition is […and] the availability of […] tools and other supplies, which also affects compliance” (CP3), and a general lack of monitoring, e.g., “there was no monitoring, there was no re-enforcement, so if Dr xx is using chloroquine as a treatment of COVID-19, what system will pick him or remand him?” (TM5). Figure 1 visualises this intersection of resourcing, utilisation, monitoring and existing evidence base.

Patient Outcomes

CMGs were regarded as important to increase shared understanding and standardisation of care, and to reduce negative patient outcomes, as well as risk and anxiety about working with highly contagious patients. Nevertheless, some described that due to existing healthcare disparities and shortage of staff trained in HCID care, prioritizing one disease inevitably meant delivery of other essential services were impacted, e.g., “HIV intensive care […], malaria, everything was affected because of one disease, so it’s more than important to prioritize these diseases […] and make sure that the health system is resilient enough to continue to support the other essential health care services” (CM3). Some participants also highlighted indirect positive effects of adherence to CMGs, including reducing stigma and mistrust and increasing the populations adherence to guidelines:

“Patients that are managed according to protocols and guidelines have a better chance of survival and are being discharged to go home, [and] the more people that go back home, the more the community trust[s] us and the earlier the patients – if they […] get VHF – will come to treatment centres for testing and further management.” (MP20)

The link of these positive outcomes of CMGs to ‘patient outcomes’ is visible in Figure 1.

Overall, Figure 2 (using a Fruchterman-Reingold layout algorithm [37–40]) highlights the codes most frequently discussed alongside barriers and challenges for the implementation of CMGs. As participants most frequently discussed CMG implementation to be hindered by ‘Content of CMGs’ (e.g., lack of inclusion of at-risk patient groups and adaptation to local settings), ‘Patient Care & Standardisation’ (e.g., treatment, therapeutics, patient triage), ‘Resourcing’ (e.g., availability of therapeutics, equipment and personnel), ‘HCW Training’ (e.g., lack of training in CMGs), ‘Access & Dissemination’ (e.g., lack of internet or print copies in rural areas), ‘CMG Change & Updates’ (e.g., slow updating for HCIDs) and ‘Pandemic Preparedness’ (in particular lack thereof). Other codes (e.g., ‘applicability to settings’, ‘healthcare system issues’, ‘patient outcomes’, and ‘improvisation of treatment’ or ‘utilisation of CMGs by staff’) were also discussed but, as indicated through their distance, less frequently.