Clinical Establishment Act Implementation in Kamrup District, Assam: A Multi-dimensional Analysis of the First DHR Registration in Northeast India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55544/jrasb.4.2.13Keywords:
Clinical Establishment Act, Implementation Science, Healthcare Regulation, Geographic Disparities, Mixed-Methods, Kamrup, AssamAbstract
Background: The Clinical Establishment Act (CEA) of 2010 represents a critical regulatory mechanism to standardize healthcare delivery across India, yet implementation has been inconsistent nationwide. This study employs advanced implementation science methods to comprehensively evaluate CEA adoption in Kamrup district, Assam, providing the first rigorous analysis of regulatory implementation in a geographically heterogeneous Northeast Indian context.
Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods quasi-experimental implementation study with an interrupted time-series design (June 2023-February 2025). A five-phase, adaptive implementation strategy was deployed across 115 healthcare establishments stratified by type and geographical accessibility. Implementation outcomes were assessed through multivariate hierarchical models integrating administrative data (n=106 establishments), geospatial analyses, stakeholder interviews (n=27), and compliance metrics across 17 standardized parameters. Advanced causal inference methods including propensity score weighting, instrumental variable analysis, and latent growth curve modeling were employed to identify implementation mechanisms and determinants.
Brief Results: Kamrup district achieved 66.1% registration completion (76/115 eligible establishments; 95% CI: 57.3-74.9%), with substantial heterogeneity across geographical strata (urban: 88.2% vs. difficult-to-reach rural: 20.0%; adjusted odds ratio=7.35, 95% CI: 2.64-20.47, p<0.001). Mean time to registration completion showed significant urban-rural disparities (urban: 63±9.8 days vs. rural: 92±14.3 days, p<0.001). Latent class analysis identified three distinct implementation trajectories: Early Adopters (22.6%), Pragmatic Responders (53.0%), and Implementation Resistors (24.3%), differentially associated with organizational characteristics (χ²=37.6, p<0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that administrative-clinical integration accounted for 47.3% (95% CI: 36.8-57.9%) of the effect of leadership engagement on implementation success. Geospatial regression modeling demonstrated significant spatial autocorrelation in implementation outcomes (Moran's I=0.62, p<0.001), with distance from district headquarters strongly negatively correlated with registration completion (r=-0.78, p<0.001).
Brief Conclusion: Our findings establish a comprehensive implementation framework for clinical establishment regulation in geographically heterogeneous contexts. The multidimensional analysis demonstrates that effective implementation requires calibrated strategies accounting for geographic determinants, organizational readiness, and administrative-clinical integration pathways. With the District Health Society poised to become the first entity in Assam to complete DHR registration, this study provides generalizable implementation parameters for similar regulatory initiatives across resource-variable settings.
Downloads
References
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. The Gazette of India. 2010;19:1-13.
Sharma A, Yadav K, Rawal G. Implementation of Clinical Establishment Act in India: A Cross-sectional Study from Northeast Region. J Health Policy Manag. 2023;42(6):487-499. doi:10.1097/HPM.0000000000001783
National Health Systems Resource Centre. National Assessment of Clinical Establishment Act Implementation: 2023 Status Report. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 2024. New Delhi: NHSRC Press.
Directorate of Health Services Assam. Kamrup District Health Profile 2023-24. Government of Assam. 2024. Guwahati: DHS Publications.
Borah S, Rahman M, Goswami M. Barriers to healthcare quality regulation in Northeast India: A qualitative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23:214. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09179-z
Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
Ghaffar A, Gilson L, Tomson G, et al. Where is the policy in health policy and systems research agenda? Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(4):306-308. doi:10.2471/BLT.15.156281
Chen J, Varghese J, Datta SS. Incremental versus comprehensive approaches to healthcare quality regulation in resource-constrained settings: A comparative analysis. Int J Qual Health Care. 2023;35(3). doi:10.1093/intqhc/mjad064
Kumar R, Gopalakrishnan S, Ramaswamy G. Clinical Establishment Act implementation in India: Governance challenges and administrative barriers. Health Policy Plan. 2024;39(1):118-129. doi:10.1093/heapol/czad062
Department of Health Research. Guidelines for Implementation of Clinical Establishments Act. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2022. New Delhi: DHR Publications.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.
Scott WR. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2013.
Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2003.
Luke DA, Calhoun A, Robichaux CB, Elliott MB, Moreland-Russell S. The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool: A new instrument for public health programs. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:130184. doi:10.5888/pcd11.130184
District Health Society, Kamrup. Annual Report 2024-25. Government of Assam. 2025. Guwahati: DHS Press.
Singh B, Mehta S, Goswami A, et al. Development and validation of quality standards assessment framework for clinical establishments in India. BMJ Open Qual. 2024;13. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002568
World Health Organization. Quality of Care: A Process for Making Strategic Choices in Health Systems. 2023. Geneva: WHO Press.
National Health Systems Resource Centre. Operational Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Public Health Facilities. 2024. New Delhi: NHSRC.
Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3-4):327-350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):141. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0506-3
Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):149-158. doi:10.1136/qshc.7.3.149
Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4-23. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32. doi:10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Prof. Dr. Harikumar Pallathadka, Dr. Parag Deb Roy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.