Defining a Framework and Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable Global Surgical Partnerships: A Modified Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use expert consensus to build a concrete and realistic framework and checklist to evaluate sustainability in global surgery partnerships (GSPs). BACKGROUND: Partnerships between high-resourced and low-resourced settings are often created to address the burden of unmet surgical need. Reflecting on the negative, unintended consequences of asymmetrical partnerships, global surgery community members have proposed frameworks and best practices to promote sustainable engagement between partners, though these frameworks lack consensus. This project proposes a cohesive, consensus-driven framework with accompanying evaluation metrics to guide sustainability in GSPs. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique with purposive sampling was used to build consensus on the definitions and associated evaluation metrics of previously proposed pillars (Stakeholder Engagement, Multidisciplinary Collaboration, Context-Relevant Education and Training, Bilateral Authorship, Multisource Funding, Outcome Measurement) of sustainable GSPs. RESULTS: Fifty global surgery experts from 34 countries with a median of 9.5 years of experience in the field of global surgery participated in 3 Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved on the identity, definitions, and a 47-item checklist for the evaluation of the 6 pillars of sustainability in GSPs. In all, 29% of items achieved consensus in the first round, whereas 100% achieved consensus in the second and third rounds. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first framework for building sustainable GSPs using the input of experts from all World Health Organization regions. We hope this tool will help the global surgery community to find noncolonial solutions to addressing the gap in access to quality surgical care in low-resource settings.

Postoperative morbidity and mortality in pediatric indigenous populations: a scoping review and meta-analysis.

Mounting evidence suggests that childhood health is an important predictor of wellness as an adult. Indigenous peoples worldwide suffer worse health outcomes compared to settler populations. No study comprehensively evaluates surgical outcomes for Indigenous pediatric patients. This review evaluates inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children globally for postoperative complications, morbidities, and mortality. Nine databases were searched for relevant subject headings including "pediatric", "Indigenous", "postoperative", "complications", and related terms. Main outcomes included postoperative complications, mortality, reoperations, and hospital readmission. A random-effects model was used for statistical analysis. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Fourteen studies were included in this review, and 12 met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, representing 4793 Indigenous and 83,592 non-Indigenous patients. Indigenous pediatric patients had a greater than twofold overall (OR 2.0.6, 95% CI 1.23-3.46) and 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.23-4.05) than non-Indigenous populations. Surgical site infections (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73-1.50), reoperations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.11), and length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.55, 95% CI - 0.55-1.65) were similar between the two groups. There was a non-significant increase in hospital readmissions (OR 6.09, 95% CI 0.32-116.41, p = 0.23) and overall morbidity (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91-1.40) for Indigenous children. Indigenous children worldwide experience increased postoperative mortality. It is necessary to collaborate with Indigenous communities to promote solutions for more equitable and culturally appropriate pediatric surgical care.

Evaluation of Interventions Addressing Timely Access to Surgical Care in Low-Income and Low-Middle-Income Countries as Outlined by the LANCET Commission 2030 Global Surgery Goals: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery published six global surgery goals, one of which was to provide 80% of the world's population with timely access to the Bellwether Surgical procedures. Little is known about the prevalence or efficacy of subsequent interventions implemented in under-resourced countries to increase timely access to Bellwether surgical procedures. METHODS: A systematic review of articles and grey literature published in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Two independent reviewers evaluated 1923 captured abstracts using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following a thematic analysis, two reviewers conducted data extraction on the eleven manuscripts included in the final review. RESULTS: The studied innovations, sparse in number, centred on improved educational resources, the development of orthopaedic devices, and models for assessing surgical access disparity. Eight papers were centred around timely access to caesarean sections, three around open fracture reduction, and three around laparotomy; all focused on adult populations. Five papers addressed innovations in West Africa, two in East Africa, two in South Asia, and one in Southeast Asia. Common outcome metrics were not used to assess improvements to timely surgical access. CONCLUSIONS: Few published interventions have been implemented since the publication of the 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery goals that have or will longitudinally increase the availability of timely surgical access in Low and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Tangible outcome measures in existing literature are lacking. An up-scaling and wider adoption of successful strategies is necessary and possible.

Post-operative outcomes in Indigenous patients in North America and Oceania: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Indigenous Peoples across North America and Oceania experience worse health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous people, including increased post-operative mortality. Several gaps in data exist regarding global differences in surgical morbidity and mortality for Indigenous populations based on geographic locations and across surgical specialties. The aim of this study is to evaluate disparities in post-operative outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eight electronic databases were searched with no language restriction. Studies reporting on Indigenous populations outside of Canada, the USA, New Zealand, or Australia, or on interventional procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes were post-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations, readmission rates, and length of hospital stay. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Eighty-four unique observational studies were included in this review. Of these, 67 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Oceania n = 31, North America n = 36). Extensive heterogeneity existed among studies and 50% were of poor quality. Indigenous patients had 1.26 times odds of post-operative morbidity (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.10-1.44, p<0.01) and 1.34 times odds of post-operative infection (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12-1.59, p<0.01) than non-Indigenous patients. Indigenous patients also had 1.33 times odds of reoperation (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.74, p = 0.04). In conclusion, we found that Indigenous patients in North American and Oceania experience significantly poorer surgical outcomes than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Additionally, there is a low proportion of high-quality research focusing on assessing surgical equity for Indigenous patients in these regions, despite multiple international and national calls to action for reconciliation and decolonization to improve quality surgical care for Indigenous populations.