Over the past decade, China has implemented reforms designed to expand access to health care in rural areas. Little objective evidence exists, however, on the quality of that care. This paper reports results from a standardized patient study designed to assess the quality of care delivered by village clinicians in rural China. To measure quality, we recruited individuals from the local community to serve as undercover patients and trained them to present consistent symptoms of two common illnesses (dysentery and angina). Based on 82 covert interactions between the standardized patients and local clinicians, we find that the quality of care is low as measured by adherence to clinical checklists and the rates of correct diagnoses and treatments. Further analysis suggests that quality is most strongly correlated with provider qualifications. Our results highlight the need for policy action to address the low quality of care delivered by grassroots providers. 

Abstract

Context: The Closing the Quality Gap seriesfrom the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality summarizes evidence for eight high-priority health care topics: outcomes used in disability research, bundled payment programs, public reporting initiatives, health care disparities, palliative care, the patient-centered medical home, prevention of health care-associated infections, and medication adherence.
Objective: To distill evidence from this series and provide insight into the “state of the science” of quality improvement (QI).
Methods: We provided common guidance for topic development and qualitatively synthesized evidence from the series topic reports to identify cross-topic themes, challenges, and evidence gaps as related to QI practice and science.
Results: Among topics that examined effectiveness of QI interventions, we found improvement in some outcomes but not others. Implementation context and potential harms from QI activities were not widely evaluated or reported, although market factors appeared important for incentive-based QI strategies. Patient-focused and systems-focused strategies were generally more effective than clinician-focused strategies, although the latter approach improved clinician adherence to infection prevention strategies. Audit and feedback appeared better for targeting professionals and organizations, but not patients. Topic reviewers observed heterogeneity in outcomes used for QI evaluations, weaknesses in study design, and incomplete reporting.
Conclusions: Synthesizing evidence across topics provided insight into the state of the QI field for practitioners and researchers. To facilitate future evidence synthesis, consensus is needed around a smaller set of outcomes for use in QI evaluations and a framework and lexicon to describe QI interventions more broadly, in alignment with needs of decision makers responsible for improving quality.