Training, supervision and quality of care in selected integrated community case management (iCCM) programmes: A scoping review of programmatic evidence

AIM: To describe the training, supervision and quality of care components of integrated Community Case Management (iCCM) programmes and to draw lessons learned from existing evaluations of those programmes. METHODS: Scoping review of reports from 29 selected iCCM programmes purposively provided by stakeholders containing any information relevant to understand quality of care issues. RESULTS: The number of people reached by iCCM programmes varied from the tens of thousands to more than a million. All programmes aimed at improving access of vulnerable populations to health care, focusing on the main childhood illnesses, managed by Community Health Workers (CHW), often selected bycommunities. Training and supervision were widely implemented, in different ways and intensities, and often complemented with tools (eg, guides, job aids), supplies, equipment and incentives. Quality of care was measured using many outcomes (eg, access or appropriate treatment). Overall, there seemed to be positive effects for those strategies that involved policy change, organisational change, standardisation of clinical practices and alignment with other programmes. Positive effects were mostly achieved in large multi–component programmes. Mild or no effects have been described on mortality reduction amongst the few programmes for which data on this outcome was available to us. Promising strategies included teaming–up of CHW, micro–franchising or social franchising. On–site training and supervision of CHW have been shown to improve clinical practices. Effects on caregivers seemed positive, with increases in knowledge, care seeking behaviour, or caregivers’ basic disease management. Evidence on iCCM is often of low quality, cannot relate specific interventions or the ways they are implemented with outcomes and lacks standardisation; this limits the capacity to identify promising strategies to improve quality of care. CONCLUSION: Large, multi–faceted, iCCM programmes, with strong components of training, supervision, which included additional support of equipment and supplies, seemed to improve selected quality of care outcomes. However, current evaluation and reporting practices need to be revised in a new research agenda to address the methodological challenges of iCCM evaluations.