Untangling the complexities of the implementation journey of health service delivery redesign in Kenya: a mixed-method process evaluation
This mixed-method process evaluation of Kenya's Service Delivery Redesign reform in Kakamega County reveals that while the initiative achieved significant gains in infrastructure, emergency transport, and provider training, it also generated complex unintended consequences and systemic challenges that underscore the necessity for comprehensive, adaptive health system strengthening to ensure sustainable maternal and newborn care improvements.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In many parts of the world, the journey to motherhood is fraught with danger, not because of a lack of medical knowledge, but because of a lack of access. When a pregnancy becomes complicated, a woman might need to travel far to reach a hospital equipped to handle emergencies, yet the roads are poor, the vehicles are scarce, and the cost is prohibitive. Health systems often try to solve this by building better hospitals, but a hospital alone cannot fix a broken system if the patient cannot reach it, or if the staff are not trained to use the equipment. This is the core challenge of health system redesign: it is not just about fixing one broken part, like a road or a building, but about understanding how every piece of the system—from the community health worker to the national budget—fits together. When one piece changes, it can send ripples through the entire network, sometimes helping, sometimes hurting in ways no one predicted.
In Kakamega County, Kenya, a team of researchers watched closely as local leaders attempted to rewrite the rules of maternal care. They introduced a plan called Service Delivery Redesign, a strategy that aimed to move all childbirths from small, local clinics to larger, better-equipped hospitals. The idea was simple in theory: if every woman gave birth in a facility capable of handling life-threatening complications, fewer mothers and babies would die. To make this happen, the county government, with help from a group of partners, poured money into building new maternity wards, buying ambulances, training doctors and nurses, and creating a system where hospitals could keep the money they earned to buy their own supplies. The researchers did not just count how many babies were born; they spent years watching how the plan actually worked on the ground, interviewing everyone from the county governor to the mothers waiting in labor wards, to see what happened when a complex plan met the reality of daily life.
The results were a mix of genuine triumphs and surprising setbacks. On the side of success, the plan worked remarkably well in some areas. The county built a dedicated emergency transport system that could reach a mother in labor within ten to thirty minutes, a massive improvement over the previous uncertainty of finding a vehicle. This service was free for those in need, and it worked with high reliability, successfully transporting over thirteen thousand women and newborns to hospitals. At the same time, the hospitals themselves got a physical upgrade. In two of the main hospitals, the number of beds for mothers increased significantly, from twenty-two to thirty-nine in one, and from ten to twenty-six in the other. Doctors and nurses received intensive training in handling obstetric emergencies, and a new policy allowed these hospitals to keep their own earnings, giving them the freedom to buy exactly what they needed rather than waiting for supplies from a distant central office.
However, the story did not end with these victories. As the new system took hold, it began to generate a series of unexpected problems that threatened to undo the progress. Because the plan focused so heavily on moving deliveries to the big hospitals, trust in the smaller local clinics began to erode. Mothers started to believe that only the big hospitals could offer safe care, leading them to bypass local clinics entirely, even for routine checkups. This created a bottleneck, overwhelming the larger hospitals with more patients than they could comfortably handle. The emergency transport system, while a lifesaver, also developed a flaw: some people began to exaggerate their symptoms just to get a free ambulance ride, while others waited until labor was dangerously advanced before calling for help, thinking they needed to go straight to the big hospital.
The human element of the reform also revealed deep tensions. The plan called for moving staff around to where they were needed most, but this was often perceived as a punishment rather than a strategic move. Skilled workers felt their expertise was being ignored, and some specialists left their posts because they felt their roles were not respected. The financial freedom given to the hospitals, while a good idea in theory, created new struggles. The hospitals found it difficult to generate enough money on their own to buy all the supplies they needed, and the delay in receiving reimbursements from insurance schemes left them waiting for funds. Perhaps most critically, the emergency transport system, which had saved so many lives, was built on temporary funding. When the external partners who provided the money and the vehicles left, the county struggled to keep the service running, revealing that the system was not yet strong enough to stand on its own.
The researchers found that these issues were not isolated mistakes but were deeply connected, like a set of gears that had been turned in the wrong direction. The loss of trust in local clinics led to more people crowding the big hospitals, which strained the staff and resources, which in turn made the care at the big hospitals feel rushed, further reducing trust. The financial struggles of the hospitals made it hard to keep the staff happy, leading to burnout and turnover. The study showed that while the physical improvements—new beds, new ambulances, new training—were real and measurable, they were not enough to guarantee success. The plan had changed the structure of the health system, but it had not fully accounted for how people would react to those changes or how the different parts of the system would interact over time.
Ultimately, the experience in Kakamega offers a clear lesson for anyone trying to improve health care in difficult settings. You cannot simply build a better hospital and expect the system to work. You must also understand the culture, the finances, and the human behavior that surrounds the hospital. The researchers saw that when you pull one thread to fix a problem, you might accidentally unravel another part of the tapestry. The success of such a large-scale change depends not just on the quality of the buildings or the skills of the doctors, but on the ability of the entire system to adapt, to listen to the people it serves, and to find a way to keep running even when the initial funding runs out. The plan in Kakamega made important strides, but it also highlighted that the path to saving lives is rarely a straight line, and that true improvement requires looking at the whole picture, not just the parts that are easiest to fix.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.