A framework for chronic care quality: results of a scoping review and Delphi survey

Conceptual Issues and Definitions

Instead of ‘reinventing the wheel’, we adopted the latest version of the quality-of-care framework put forward by the Institute of Medicine (5), noting that this is generic and needs to be contextualized.

We defined aims, determinants and attributes as follows:

1. ‘Aim’ – any broad category of importance with intrinsic value, as a desired final outcome that is achieved to denote that care is of good quality. Since the IOM’s framework for quality-of-care reports [4,5], the consensus converges around a list of six aims: effectiveness; efficiency; safety; equity; accessibility, timeliness, affordability; and person-centredness. While we are aware that different documents/reports have extended or reorganized this list, we took the IOM quality aims as our starting point.

2. ‘Determinant’ – any actionable factor which has direct effect on achieving any dimension of quality of care. These can be considered as the ‘elements’ presented in models for chronic care. The determinants also correspond to the “health system determinants” as described by WHO [8] to support a health system in delivering healthcare. Determinants may extend to systemic challenges health system-wise, including arrangements within a system or a model of health service delivery and the conditions/limitations/opportunities to be found in family, community resources, the environment, and the community itself.

3. Attribute – any variable of importance that measures achievement of specific quality aim(s) or fulfilment of (some of) its determinants. It can relate to a specific chronic condition or in general. This can be considered as the overall measurable characteristics of the different aims and/or determinants of good quality healthcare, as well as actions on determinants (along organising principles) to achieve the quality aims, for which direct indicators and criteria can be formulated (usually based on context).

Scoping review

We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA extension guidelines [10] to systematically identify available information on quality of care for chronic conditions, identifying key concepts. We selected works that have acknowledged and unpacked the plurality of quality in chronic care, and which proposed/made use of frameworks or looked into two or more IOM aims of care quality and studied or demonstrated implementation. The scoping review protocol is available from https://www.itg.be/en/research/research-themes/quality-of-care-for-chronic-conditions.

Scientific publications

On 2 February 2022, search for scientific publications was conducted in the PubMed and Science Direct data bases using specific search terms: ‘chronic condition’/’chronic illness’/’chronic disease’; ‘quality of healthcare’; ‘innovative care for chronic conditions’; ‘chronic care model’; ‘quality criteria’; ‘quality indicators’; specific chronic conditions considered among top drivers of chronic disease burden [11] (‘ischaemic heart disease’, ‘hypertension’ and ‘stroke’; ‘diabetes mellitus’; ‘chronic kidney disease’; ‘lung cancer’; ‘HIV/AIDS’; ‘chronic obstructive pulmonary disease’ and ‘bronchial asthma’) and additional conditions as suggested by the WHO team (‘chronic musculoskeletal conditions’; ‘chronic skin disease’); and criteria: written in English or French; publication years 2002-2021; among humans.

Other literature and documents

Search for grey/other literature (policies, circulars, publications not available from scientific search engines) were conducted using the same keywords but including general quality of care documents and with broader year limitations (1999-2022) in the Google search engine. Additionally, contacts from the WHO, healthcare regulatory agencies, organizations with chronic disease programs/projects, and various Ministries of Health and/or connected agencies were requested to share any documents they have produced as related to quality of care, specifically for chronic conditions.

Literature sifting

Scientific publications were sifted through Rayyan (www.rayyan.ai). This was done systematically by minimum two members of the research team with any disagreements resolved amongst the two, as needed, through a third researcher. Retrieved scientific publications were initially screened through the titles. Abstracts (if available) of the chosen documents were individually reviewed. Full articles were scrutinized and selected; only documents that are relevant to this study were included in the final selection. We also looked into the bibliographic references of the included articles to check for additional literature; however, none of the snowballed papers were included in the final list. (Figure 2)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Sifting of retrieved scientific literature

Grey literature and other documents were purposively collected.

Data extraction and framework building

Data retrieval was systematically initiated by at least one of the members of the research team and verified by a different member. We critically analysed the literature and made use of deductive and inductive approaches to identify quality aims, determinants and attributes. We used our definitions for deductive and inductive analysis. We utilised the IOM quality framework to deductively extract data on aims. Analysis was done iteratively, going back to the literature as we identified additional concepts and critically analysing to expound on the meanings. We intended to group determinants following the WHO health systems building blocks [8]. However, as we also considered resources beyond the health system, we reclassified the groups to: (1) leadership and governance; (2) financing; (3) resources (including health workforce, health information, medical products, vaccines, and technologies, PwCC, their families, the community and other sectors); and (4) service delivery. We then inductively identified specific determinants, any specific actions on these determinants, and corresponding principles organising said actions. We also determined measurable attributes relative to each of the chronic care quality aims. Additionally, during data extraction, we noted that specific papers would concentrate on a particular stage in the ‘journey’ of a person in the natural history of a chronic condition (e.g. addressing risks, rehabilitation, etc). We thus went back to our selection to consciously extract additional information on particular stages of the PwCC journey. We then brought forward said concepts, as related to the aims, determinants, and attributes of good quality chronic care, and the principles that organise actions on the determinants, to build the zero version of the chronic care quality (CCQ) framework. To note, the lived experiences of the research team (as health care provider, PwCC, health economist, anthropologist, public health expert; from LIC, MIC, HIC) influenced the critical analysis of the data.

Delphi survey

We prepared a list of “mid”- to “advanced” level chronic care experts, gleaned through our own professional networks, references from colleagues or other known experts, relevant publications in peer-reviewed journals or the websites of relevant organizations, and from recommendations by different organisations (e.g. NCD Alliance, Global Alliance on Chronic Diseases), and supplemented by the WHO Team. A concern was to secure, to the extent possible, representation across genders, types of expertise, and settings of activities/experience (with focus on low- and middle-over high-income settings), covering the six WHO regions. We conducted two rounds of the Delphi survey via an online application, Mesydel (https://mesydel.com/en). The first step was to arrive at an agreement over our scoping review findings that build towards the chronic care quality framework, and to propose financing mechanisms to improve quality of chronic care. Based on first round results, the second round was conducted to fine-tune purchasing arrangements. For this paper, we concentrated on findings contributing to the chronic care quality framework. Findings related to financing mechanisms to improve quality of chronic care will be presented in a separate paper.

We presented scoping review findings and version zero of the chronic care quality framework to our Delphi respondents. There was consensus on the identified chronic care quality aims, the groups of determinants, and our proposed actions in the first round. The respondents gave rich suggestions on how each of the chronic care quality aims could be achieved, providing specific determinants and actions based on their own settings, to complement the chronic care quality framework. We synthesised and critically analysed the responses, reflecting on our scoping review findings and contrasting and comparing all information collected.

The natural history of (most) chronic conditions and the PwCC journey

Our scoping review findings [5,13–14,29,33,37,52,55,59,64,68] indicate a path of a person who is at risk of and will eventually develop (and die from) a chronic condition. In the natural history of most chronic conditions, exposure of a person throughout the whole life-course (from foetal life to adulthood) to certain social, structural and commercial determinants of health and diverse risk factors predisposes a person to develop chronic conditions. Left unaddressed, continued exposure to risks and determinants will likely cause maldevelopment of and/or damage to various organ systems including the immune system and, eventually, lead to the development of chronic conditions. Using this person’s path through the ‘natural history’ of (most) chronic conditions, we mapped out the journey through healthcare of a person who is at risk of and will eventually develop (and die from) a chronic condition, and expectations from the healthcare system. We propose the stages in the journey and touchpoints in healthcare as follows (see Figure 3):

1. general population, for risk prevention

2. at (high) risk population, for risk control

3. PwCC, of which there would be different touchpoints

   1. diagnosis and prompt treatment,

   2. follow-up

      • i. for the condition

        • (1) regular follow-up

        • (2) during exacerbations/moments of crisis

      • ii. for co-morbid conditions

      • iii. for complications

      • iv. for other health problems

   3. rehabilitation

   4. palliative and end-of-life care

   5. considerations for the primary informal caregivers of PwCC

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Journey through the healthcare delivery system of a person with chronic condition (PwCC Journey)

Explanatory notes: Community-based services include, among others, general health promotion activities; awareness-raising; risk-screening and control; early diagnosis (screening for disease); self-management support; linking with community resources; community reintegration and community-based rehabilitation. Facility-based services include, among others, early diagnosis (confirmatory); prompt and regular clinical case management; self-management education; targeted risk control; for complications and comorbidities/multimorbidities - early recognition (including screening), prompt and regular treatment and referral (as needed). ‘Good control’ refers to achievement of good clinical endpoints of the chronic condition; logically, ‘not in good control’ is the opposite. In a lifetime of a PwCC, it is expected that there will be moments of ‘good’ control and moments of ‘poor’ (not in good) control. The frequency of either, and the severity of ‘poor control’ depends on a number of factors, the quality of chronic care of which plays a vital role. Comorbidity is the occurrence of multiple (acute and/or chronic medical conditions which may or may not be related with the chronic condition of the PwCC, and which contribute to their total burden of (physiologic as well as psychosocial) dysfunction. While these may either be acute or other chronic conditions, comorbidities are usually used for additional chronic conditions. The presence of comorbidities complexifies healthcare as there may be agonistic and antagonistic interactions in case management. ‘Complications’ are conditions that arise from (worsening of) the chronic condition(s) including those that arise during the course of treatment. Other health problems are health issues which are unrelated to the chronic condition but are recognised as such because of effects of the chronic condition on the health and well-being of the person. These may also be classified as comorbid conditions, but we use this term to refer to other health problems not necessarily with established diagnosis and may include the need for preventive services, e.g., immunizations, prophylaxis treatments, as warranted by the chronic condition.

The depicted journey and corresponding touchpoints with the healthcare system should not be viewed in a linear, streamlined fashion. People may skip stages, ‘leave’ without completing the whole journey (where death may be from other causes, e.g. a fatal accident), or may regress to a preceding stage. PwCC may experience more than one of the depicted stages (e.g. not in good control + complications + other health problems). Additionally, a person with multimorbidity will be in separate stages concurrently, as they will be in a certain stage for each of their chronic condition. Moreover, given an ageing population and an increase in the numbers of PwCCs (and with multimorbidity) among them, the demand for chronic care will considerably increase worldwide [82]. Care models will no longer be able to rely solely on healthcare professionals because of lack of personnel and funding. Informal care will be essential for sustainability. These informal caregivers need to have the knowledge and be trained to provide care for the PwCC; at the same time, they also need to care for their own well-being. Supporting informal caregivers by equipping them with the knowledge to care for PwCC and for their own selves eventually will reflect on chronic care quality [30].

The PwCC journey relates well to the data collected from the scoping review, where aims and/or determinants and attributes of good quality chronic care have been applied and studied in the different stages of the journey (see supplementary file). This also strongly suggests that adopting what we propose to call as ‘journey consciousness’ should be expected from all actors (providers, users, regulators, financiers, policy-makers, etc.) who are in a position to shape the delivery of chronic care services.

Aims

We identified seven aims for quality of chronic care in our scoping review: effectiveness; efficiency; safety; equity; accessibility, timeliness and affordability; person-centredness; and continuity. These are presented in our earlier paper [9].

Determinants

We identified and classified ‘determinants’ of quality chronic care into our proposed four groups, which can be distributed across the different health system levels (national health system, local health system, health facility and healthcare team) akin to the macro-, meso- and micro-levels of the WHO ICCCF [68].

1. Leadership & governance would, at the national (systems) level, encompass the (overarching) policies and legislative frameworks for and in support of good quality care for chronic conditions. At the local and health facility levels, these would include different management and work systems, such as:

   1. Local or health facility governance [19,32–33,38–41,43,48,50–51,54], local or health facility policies and local legislative frameworks as applicable (depending on the level of decentralization).

   2. Quality management systems (QMS) [32–33,46,48–51,55].

   3. Health information management systems [12–13,17–18,22–23,25,27,29,32–36,43,50,57–59].

   4. Learning and knowledge management systems (including guidelines, standard operating procedures and their implementing rules and regulations) [14–17,22–23,25,28,32–33,43–45,47–49,51–52,54–55,57,59].

   5. Resource governance / management of resources, including management of human resources for health [39–41,48,51–52,56].

   6. Multisectoral and community engagement and collaborations to (help) address risks and determinants of chronic conditions, and to support the PwCC in their journey [20–21,25,26,33,36–39,50–52].

      We note that stakeholders beyond the health sector are particularly relevant for chronic conditions, for co-designing and co-implementing interventions on risks and the social, structural and commercial determinants of the development and worsening of chronic conditions [33,38,39,43,49]. Such engagements can be initiated at both the national and local levels.

   7. Involvement/engagement of PwCC in policy- and decision-making on issues concerning chronic care in general and for their own selves [20–21,25–26,33,36–39].

2. Financing at both national and local levels can consider healthcare financing itself, purchasing, healthcare spending (% of GDP, other sources, out-of-pocket expenditures), etc. Only five of the included scientific literature mention financing [25,32,43,46–47]. We note that three of our included literature suggest, but do not provide details, that rewards for effective clinical processes affecting management and prevention of chronic problems can be established[29,68,80]. This was one of the aspects explored in the second round of our Delphi survey and will be discussed in a separate paper.

3. Resources would depend on the level of (de)centralization of health care. For instance, in a (more) centralized system, most of these determinants would originate from the national level. Depending on the degree of decentralization, these would then shift towards the local health systems, and involve the health facilities, the communities, and the PwCC and their family. We identified determinants classified under resources from our scientific and grey literature, as follows:

   1. Infrastructure – physical environment, healthcare facility buildings and lay-out of the buildings [60,65,81].

   2. Health care staff – with skills, knowledge and expertise in caring for chronic conditions [52,56].

   3. Health information – the information/data collected from people consulting at the health facility; what these are and how these are documented and kept, accessed, used, and shared [13–14,17–18,22–23,25,27,32–36,43,50,57–59].

   4. Equipment, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and consumables, based on local patterns of diseases and health problems, to support chronic care delivery from health promotion to tertiary prevention and to promote and support self-management and informal caregiver management of the PwCC [23,41,81].

   5. Sectors and stakeholders other than health who may positively – directly or indirectly – contribute to prevention and control of risks and chronic conditions [33,38–40,43].

   6. PwCC, their families and their social networks, and other resources in the community [15,17,22,32,43,50] noting that informal caregiver is the subject of one of the scientific literature we reviewed [30].

4. Service delivery

   This determinant group is well-developed in the included scientific literature, for instance:

   1. chronic care services [5,12–81] including services for self-management education and support, and

   2. delivery systems [27–29,32,34–40,42–43,46–52,54,56–60].

Actions on the determinants

Corollary to the above, although the presence of some determinants per se can already be construed to (partly) achieve specific chronic care quality aims (e.g. having chronic care structures in place, i.e. availability of chronic care services), other determinants need particular actions.

As noted in the literature we reviewed, actions would include:

1. Organization of health services [12–13,15,17–20,22–25,30,32–34,36,39,43,46–47] to have a (comprehensive) offer of care for chronic conditions (i.e. the chronic care services). This includes sound determinations of what services should be offered and in what levels, which of the human resources for health are tasked to do which activity, and how these are organized, specifically (e.g. as a separate “vertical service” or integrated with other services). Organization should also include making the services available on a regular basis and considering financial, cultural and temporal accessibility. While certain services may not be available every day, the time schedule should be fixed (e.g. fixed hours and days) to facilitate access and maximally accommodate PwCCs.

2. Designing a system of delivery of chronic care that is conscious of a person’s journey through the natural history of chronic conditions, so that the offer is well-coordinated, continuous and seamless. A comprehensive health systems response would encompass health services from a person’s risk exposure to their end-of life. This way, PwCC do not fall from care as they traverse their journey and move from one level of care to another, and from the community to the health facilities and vice versa. We noted this journey-conscious action, describing specific steps in the journey (e.g., screening to diagnosis and follow-up; addressing complications and comorbidities and reintegration) in 15 of the scientific literature we reviewed [18,23–24,26–27,34,36–37,41,44,46,51,54,56,58].

3. Ensuring availability of appropriate equipment, laboratory tests and medicine responsive to the needs of the population and having proper inventory and stocking mechanisms to avoid stock-outs, mechanisms to avoid equipment breakdown [23,41,61,81].

4. Ensuring proper skill mix, training, professional education (i.e. updating knowledge with scientific evidence), and supportive supervision of human resources for health to deliver coordinated, collaborative, biopsychosocial, and person-centred, culture- and gender-sensitive chronic care including self-management education and support, to PwCC, as well as ensuring health care staff motivation [13,20,22,38–39,44,46–47,51,56–58].

5. Actions on health information systems so that:

   1. Data are analysed in a timely manner to assess population needs [13,17,22,32,43,50]

   2. Individual health records are available and up to date for individual case management [80]; and that said PwCC health record follow them from one service to another, from one level to another, and are also accessible to the PwCC (and their informal caregivers, as warranted) etc. [13–14,17–18,22–23,25,27,32–36,43,50,57–59].

6. Actions towards promoting a culture of quality such as continuous quality improvement, with a cycle of monitoring and evaluation to check for opportunities for improvement and to act on these constructively [33–34,44,47,49–52,56].

7. Actions on financing which would include, among others, proper allocation of finances; generation, mobilization, pooling and coordination of resources; incentives [25,32,38,67,75]; considerations for alternative financing mechanisms, etc. [24,26,33,35,39,47,49], considering that PwCCs are expected to utilize health services regularly throughout the duration of their condition and more often throughout their lifetime and, thus, would need and use resources more often.

8. Provision of PwCC self-management education and support (also for informal caregivers)[12–13,15–18,21–23,25,27,29–32,35,37,42–43,47,49,59].

Integration as an exemplary principle to organize actions

Integration has received considerable attention and various interpretations, including in WHO [7,61–63,66]. Care and/or service integration is explicitly indicated as an action in 14 of the scientific literature we reviewed [18,22,33–35,37–38,40,43,45,55–57,59]. In 13 other reviewed scientific literature, the actions on care collaboration and/or coordination and/or partnerships were used as a means to integrate care or services or healthcare providers (both formal and informal) [16–17,22–24,36,39,42,44,46–47,52,54]. Our analysis places integration as an exemplary organising principle that orients actions on determinants to improve quality of chronic care. Organising the coherence of various interventions to improve quality of care matters, as acting on determinants presented above will also compete for resources.

Our literature review suggests that applying integration as an organizing principle to act on various chronic care quality determinants would have at least two implications.

First, it would encourage integration of different chronic care services, encompassing health promotion, and primary, secondary and tertiary prevention including curative care and involving different sectors and disciplines, and also taking into account social services [7,38–39,53,61,62,75,79,81]. This way, the different chronic care services at different levels and carried-out by various healthcare personnel/disciplines are integrated to: include population actions [25,33,38,56,59]; incorporate mechanisms to connect the PwCC with community resources [15,27,31,43,49,69,74]; and assure seamless access to all levels of care and/or other healthcare services/specialties (i.e. there is management continuity) and with their health information made available (i.e. informational continuity is ensured) covering all steps of the PwCC journey.

Second, it would encourage integration of ‘integrated chronic care services’ with other ongoing healthcare activities. Integration of diabetes care with other ongoing primary health care activities in LMICs has been demonstrated to improve quality of diabetes care in the past [83]. Community-based healthcare workers can perform health promotion, risk prevention and control, and screening for chronic conditions at the community level together with their other ongoing community-based activities (e.g. under-5 growth monitoring, as TB-DOTS treatment partner)[14,39]. Facility-based healthcare professionals can also take advantage and screen people identified at risk, if and when they consult (even for a different health problem), and confirm the diagnosis and initiate prompt treatment and self-management education of PwCC, together with their other healthcare activities[13].

Attributes

We identified attributes relative to specific quality aims, per determinant group, from the included scientific and grey literature (Table 2). We note that these may be specific to the context of the setting/focus of the paper cited. While a considerable number of the scientific literature presented attributes of good clinical outcomes, we noted that attributes related to structure and/or process were also used.

Delphi survey results

Forty-nine of the 52 invited stakeholders (94%) consented and participated in the Delphi survey. Table 3 provides demographic and pertinent characteristics.

There was consensus on the proposed chronic care quality aims, as we described previously [9]. In the open-ended component of the survey, the respondents described determinants and actions, and related these to achievement of the aims based on their experiences, more particularly in low resource settings. The panellists agree that attributes need to be contextual, and that the structure-process-outcome framework can be used to identify specific indicators.

They indicated the need to organize chronic care and service delivery that encompasses the whole gamut from screening to clinical management (or a ‘journey-conscious’ approach), which could redound on efficiency, accessibility, equity, effectiveness and continuity.

• “prevention must be considered”

• “Different segments of the health system could provide better continuity of care, from screening through management through treatment - which would make a big difference to patients.”

• “the passive and disease-focused approach of the healthcare system affects the quality of chronic care, which is often reduced to the belated attention of clinical complications in referral settings and at a high cost”

• “Service delivery for chronic conditions is absent in primary care. Medicines are not continuously available or not affordable or it is not well explained how they must be taken or adhered to or people receive the inappropriate medicines for their condition.”

• “Right now, we have reactive, short-term care and changing that mindset is priority. (Currently) chronic care is nobody’s business which, unfortunately, means that patients have to do it (by) themselves.”

The need for resources was highlighted; specifically identifying human resources to improve accessibility and equity, having health information systems in place for care continuity, and engagement of PwCC for self-management.

• “provision of health care needs resources”

• “Unequal distribution of doctors with concentrations in urban areas aggravates access problems.”

• “I would ensure that services of health providers were generally accessible to all and equitably distributed.”

• “…the absence of good electronic MIS (health information systems) that track the patient contributes to lack of continuity of care.”

• “I would put a premium on empowering patients to be able to do self-care, particularly for interventions that have been proven to be effective. This means increasing health literacy and emphasis on primary prevention.”

Regarding financing, the respondents indicated effects on accessibility, equity, continuity and person-centredness.

• “The greatest current challenge is the lack of financing… the health system was under-funded…accessibility worsened following the political-economic crisis. Inequity has always been a major challenge”

• “Without a single financial architecture, the data systems, continuity of care, patient-centeredness, etc. are all extremely difficult to achieve.”

The responses were varied for the determinant group leadership and governance, calling for strategic planning and priority setting, and connecting these determinants with integration, collaborative care and wider determinants of health, which would redound on chronic care quality:

• “Work more on strategic planning and setting priorities, as well as improving health care in general.”

• “For improved care on chronic conditions we need to achieve the following:

  • a. Delivery within integrated care pathways spanning across care sectors and being organised around the patient;

  • b. Co-development of interventions, Care pathways and treatment plans with patients;

  • c. Provision of the data, electronic, administrative, and governance infrastructure to enable integrated care for chronic condition;

  • d. Focus on improving wider determinants of health (housing, social support network, community facilities, education etc) and primary prevention in the patient’s community setting.”

They also mentioned strengthening the health information and referral and counter-referral systems to help ensure continuity:

• “(Continuity) can be enabled by strengthening the information system and introducing digitization, where possible.”

• “we need to set up a good health information system to monitor patients within the district. Depending on the technical facilities available, a referral and counter-referral system needs to be set up …between the 2 levels … to deal with any complications.”

and working on human resources for health to improve retention.

• “improve the plans for health staff and develop motivational mechanisms for keeping health staff in a country.”

For our proposed framework, the panel recommended viewing equity as a cross-cutting issue, which calls for broad societal transformations. Inequitable access to care for chronic conditions is evident: while the better-off and urban population can avail private facilities or outpatient care at hospital level, the poorest households will often not find accessible or affordable treatments in their surroundings. This calls for attention to vulnerable groups (e.g. migrants, ethnic minorities, marginalized population, people living with disability), the extra barriers they face (e.g. cultural barriers, stigma, etc.) and the lower quality of care they often get.

Considering the serious shortcomings in quality of care in many facilities and health systems, the panel recommended prioritization to ensure that core determinants of quality of care are fulfilled (i.e. secure the availability of medicines, diagnostics, qualified staff, appropriate digital data system, quality assurance and clinical governance, etc.).

Illustrating the chronic care quality framework

We finalised the chronic care quality framework considering the the above results.

Figure 4 illustrates that actions on determinants can fulfil quality aims and any of these can be measured through attributes, making use of structure, process and outcomes criteria and indicators. We also emphasized the view that equity should be a cross-cutting aim, as recommended by the Delphi panel. We remind that the determinants and actions should be situated in each step of the healthcare journey of PwCC, as illustrated in Figure 3.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Framework for good quality care for chronic conditions