Is a Low-Cost Drill Cover System Noninferior to Conventional Surgical Drills for Skeletal Traction Pin Placement?

SUMMARY: The Drill Cover system was developed as a low-cost alternative to conventional surgical drills with specific applicability to low- and middle-income countries. However, the system may also be useful for the sterile placement of traction pins in the emergency department of high-income country hospitals. In September 2019, a US-based Level-1 trauma center began using the Drill Cover system to apply skeletal traction pins in patients with femoral shaft fractures. With these data, we performed a retrospective interrupted time series study to determine if the Drill Cover system was noninferior to conventional surgical drills in terms of infections at the traction pin site. The study included 205 adult patients with femoral shaft fractures initially placed in skeletal traction using a conventional surgical drill (n = 150, preintervention group) or the Drill Cover system (n = 55, postintervention group). The primary outcome was an infection at the site of skeletal traction pin placement that required surgery or antibiotics, which was compared between groups using a noninferiority test with a 1-sided alpha of 0.05 and a noninferiority margin of 3%. No infections at the site of skeletal traction pin placement were found in either the preintervention or the postintervention group (difference, 0%; 95% confidence interval: 0.0%-1.4%; noninferiority P value < 0.01). The results suggest that the Drill Cover system was noninferior to conventional surgical drills regarding infections at the site of skeletal traction pins. The Drill Cover system may be a safe alternative to the more expensive surgical drills for skeletal traction pin placement in the emergency room environment.

Global Lessons In Frugal Innovation To Improve Health Care Delivery In The United States.

In a 2015 global study of low-cost or frugal innovations, we identified five leading innovations that scaled successfully in their original contexts and that may provide insights for scaling such innovations in the United States. We describe common themes among these diverse innovations, critical factors for their translation to the United States to improve the efficiency and quality of health care, and lessons for the implementation and scaling of other innovations. We highlight promising trends in the United States that support adapting these innovations, including growing interest in moving care out of health care facilities and into community and home settings; the growth of alternative payment models and incentives to experiment with new approaches to population health and care delivery; and the increasing use of diverse health professionals, such as community health workers and advanced practice providers. Our findings should inspire policy makers and health care professionals and inform them about the potential for globally sourced frugal innovations to benefit US health care.

Explicit Bias Toward High-Income-Country Research: A Randomized, Blinded, Crossover Experiment Of English Clinicians.

Unconscious bias may interfere with the interpretation of research from some settings, particularly from lower-income countries. Most studies of this phenomenon have relied on indirect outcomes such as article citation counts and publication rates; few have addressed or proven the effect of unconscious bias in evidence interpretation. In this randomized, blinded crossover experiment in a sample of 347 English clinicians, we demonstrate that changing the source of a research abstract from a low- to a high-income country significantly improves how it is viewed, all else being equal. Using fixed-effects models, we measured differences in ratings for strength of evidence, relevance, and likelihood of referral to a peer. Having a high-income-country source had a significant overall impact on respondents' ratings of relevance and recommendation to a peer. Unconscious bias can have far-reaching implications for the diffusion of knowledge and innovations from low-income countries.

Do International Health Partnerships contribute to reverse innovation? a mixed methods study of THET-supported partnerships in the UK.

BACKGROUND: International health partnerships (IHPs) are changing, with an increased emphasis on mutual accountability and joint agenda setting for both the high- and the low- or middle-income country (LMIC) partners. There is now an important focus on the bi-directionality of learning however for the UK partners, this typically focuses on learning at the individual level, through personal and professional development. We sought to evaluate whether this learning also takes the shape of 'Reverse Innovation' -when an idea conceived in a low-income country is subsequently adopted in a higher-income country. METHODS: This mixed methods study used an initial scoping survey of all the UK-leads of the Tropical Health Education Trust (THET)-supported International Health Partnerships (n = 114) to ascertain the extent to which the IHPs are or have been vehicles for Reverse Innovation. The survey formed the sampling frame for further deep-dive interviews to focus on volunteers' experiences and attitudes to learning from LMICs. Interviews of IHP leads (n = 12) were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Survey data was analysed descriptively. Interview transcripts were coded thematically, using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 27% (n = 34). The majority (70%) strongly agreed that supporting LMIC partners best described the mission of the partnership but only 13% of respondents strongly agreed that learning about new innovations and models was a primary mission of their partnership. Although more than half of respondents reported having observed innovative practice in the LMIC, only one IHP respondent indicated that this has led to Reverse Innovation. Interviews with a sample of survey respondents revealed themes primarily around how learning is conceptualised, but also a central power imbalance between the UK and LMIC partners. Paternalistic notions of knowledge could be traced to partnership power dynamics and latent attitudes to LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the global flow of innovation, if High-income countries (HICs) are to benefit from LMIC practices, it is paramount to keep an open mind about where such learning can come from. Making the potential for learning more explicit and facilitating innovation dissemination upon return will ultimately underpin the success of adoption.

African healthcare innovation: An untapped resource?.

Healthcare systems across the world are in need of innovations that can achieve more with less, for more people. African nations have always been good partners for high-income institutions as they develop and test new ideas. However, they are now at the forefront of developing novel approaches to healthcare, grounded in community-centered approaches, but which also capitalize on the potential of digital healthcare. African healthcare leaders should be bold in realizing their own potential, and leaders from high-income countries must be open to innovations emerging from non-traditional sources.