Scaling up Surgical Capacity in Kenya: The Kenya Hospital Assessment Tool (K-HAT).

INTRODUCTION: Although substantial progress has been achieved to bring surgical care to the forefront of global health discussions, a number of low-and middle-income countries are still in the process of developing a National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plan (NSOAP). This paper describes the initial step toward the development of the NSOAP through the creation of the Kenya National Hospital Assessment Tool (K-HAT). METHODS: A study protocol was developed by a multisectoral collaborative group that represented the pillars of surgical capacity development in Kenya. The K-HAT was adapted from two World Health Organization (WHO) tools: the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool and the Situational Analysis Tool. The survey tool was deployed on Open Data Kit, an open-source electronic encrypted database. This new locally adapted tool was pilot tested in three hospitals in Kenya and subsequently deployed in Level 4 facilities. RESULTS: Eighty-nine questions representing over 800 data points divided into six WHO Health Systems Strengthening sections comprised the K-HAT which was deployed to over 95% of Level 4 hospitals in Kenya. When compared to the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool, the K-HAT collected more detailed information. The pilot test team reported that K-HAT was easy to administer, easily understood by the respondents, and that it took approximately 1 hour to collect data from each facility. CONCLUSIONS: The K-HAT collected comprehensive information that can be used to develop Kenya's NSOAP.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Processes, Interventions, and Structure in Trauma Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains high compared to high-income countries. Quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure are essential in the effort to decrease trauma mortality. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country trauma systems was conducted from November 1989 to August 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC population according to World Bank Income Classification, occurred in a trauma setting, and measured the effect of implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was trauma mortality. RESULTS: Of 37,575 search results, 30 studies were included from 15 LMICs covering five WHO regions in a qualitative synthesis. Twenty-seven articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementing a pre-hospital trauma system reduced overall trauma mortality by 45% (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.75). Training first responders resulted in an overall decrease in mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78). In-hospital trauma training with certified courses resulted in a reduction of mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78). Trauma audits and trauma protocols resulted in varying improvements in trauma mortality. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure can improve mortality in the trauma systems in LMICs.

The Impact of Quality Improvement Interventions in Improving Surgical Infections and Mortality in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality in surgical systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain high compared to high-income countries. Quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure are essential in the effort to improve peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country surgical systems was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC, occurred in a surgical setting, and measured the effect of an implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were rates of rates of hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and surgical site infections (SSI). Prospero Registration: CRD42020171542. RESULT: Of 38,273 search results, 31 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, and 28 articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementation of multimodal bundled interventions reduced the incidence of HAI by a relative risk (RR) of 0.39 (95%CI 0.26 to 0.59), the effect of hand hygiene interventions on HAIs showed a non-significant effect of RR of 0.69 (0.46-1.05). The WHO Safe Surgery Checklist reduced mortality by RR 0.68 (0.49 to 0.95) and SSI by RR 0.50 (0.33 to 0.63) and antimicrobial stewardship interventions reduced SSI by RR 0.67 (0.48-0.93). CONCLUSION: There is evidence that a number of quality improvement processes, interventions and structural changes can improve mortality, HAI and SSI outcomes in the peri-operative setting in LMICs.

Development of a Unifying Target and Consensus Indicators for Global Surgical Systems Strengthening: Proposed by the Global Alliance for Surgery, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care (The G4 Alliance).

After decades on the margins of primary health care, surgical and anaesthesia care is gaining increasing priority within the global development arena. The 2015 publications of the Disease Control Priorities third edition on Essential Surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery created a compelling evidenced-based argument for the fundamental role of surgery and anaesthesia within cost-effective health systems strengthening global strategy. The launch of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care in 2015 has further coordinated efforts to build priority for surgical care and anaesthesia. These combined efforts culminated in the approval of a World Health Assembly resolution recognizing the role of surgical care and anaesthesia as part of universal health coverage. Momentum gained from these milestones highlights the need to identify consensus goals, targets and indicators to guide policy implementation and track progress at the national level. Through an open consultative process that incorporated input from stakeholders from around the globe, a global target calling for safe surgical and anaesthesia care for 80% of the world by 2030 was proposed. In order to achieve this target, we also propose 15 consensus indicators that build on existing surgical systems metrics and expand the ability to prioritize surgical systems strengthening around the world.

Implementation of the World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist Program in 11 Centers Across Multiple Economic Strata: Effect on Care Process Measures.

BACKGROUND: Trauma contributes more than ten percent of the global burden of disease. Initial assessment and resuscitation of trauma patients often requires rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions, and errors are common. We investigated whether implementing a trauma care checklist would improve care for injured patients in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma Care Checklist program was assessed in 11 hospitals using a stepped wedge pre- and post-intervention comparison with randomly assigned intervention start dates. Study sites represented nine countries with diverse economic and geographic contexts. Primary end points were adherence to process of care measures; secondary data on morbidity and mortality were also collected. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in measures pre- versus post-intervention, accounting for patient age, gender, injury severity, and center-specific variability. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1641 patients before and 1781 after program implementation. Patient age (mean 34 ± 18 vs. 34 ± 18), sex (21 vs. 22 % female), and the proportion of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) ≥ 25 (10 vs. 10 %) were similar before and after checklist implementation (p > 0.05). Improvement was found for 18 of 19 process measures, including greater odds of having abdominal examination (OR 3.26), chest auscultation (OR 2.68), and distal pulse examination (OR 2.33) (all p < 0.05). These changes were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Trauma Care Checklist was associated with substantial improvements in patient care process measures among a cohort of patients in diverse settings.

Essential surgery: the way forward.

INTRODUCTION: Very little surgical care is performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An estimated two billion people in the world have no access to essential surgical care, and non-surgeons perform much of the surgery in remote and rural areas. Surgical care is as yet not recognized as an integral aspect of primary health care despite its self-demonstrated cost-effectiveness. We aimed to define the parameters of a public health approach to provide surgical care to areas in most need. METHODS: Consensus meetings were held, field experience was collected via targeted interviews, and a literature review on the current state of essential surgical care provision in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) was conducted. Comparisons were made across international recommendations for essential surgical interventions and a consensus-driven list was drawn up according to their relative simplicity, resource requirement, and capacity to provide the highest impact in terms of averted mortality or disability. RESULTS: Essential Surgery consists of basic, low-cost surgical interventions, which save lives and prevent life-long disability or life-threatening complications and may be offered in any district hospital. Fifteen essential surgical interventions were deduced from various recommendations from international surgical bodies. Training in the realm of Essential Surgery is narrow and strict enough to be possible for non-physician clinicians (NPCs). This cadre is already active in many SSA countries in providing the bulk of surgical care. CONCLUSION: A basic package of essential surgical care interventions is imperative to provide structure for scaling up training and building essential health services in remote and rural areas of LMICs. NPCs, a health cadre predominant in SSA, require training, mentoring, and monitoring. The cost of such training is vastly more efficient than the expensive training of a few polyvalent or specialist surgeons, who will not be sufficient in numbers within the next few generations. Moreover, these practitioners are used to working in the districts and are much less prone to gravitate elsewhere. The use of these NPCs performing "Essential Surgery" is a feasible route to deal with the almost total lack of primary surgical care in LMICs.

Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in provision of essential surgical care as part of public health policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Relatively simple interventions have been shown to prevent death and disability. We reviewed the published literature to examine the cost-effectiveness of simple surgical interventions which could be made available at any district hospital, and compared these to standard public health interventions. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched using single and combinations of the search terms "disability adjusted life year" (DALY), "quality adjusted life year," "cost-effectiveness," and "surgery." Articles were included if they detailed the cost-effectiveness of a surgical intervention of relevance to a LMIC, which could be made available at any district hospital. Suitable articles with both cost and effectiveness data were identified and, where possible, data were extrapolated to enable comparison across studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met our inclusion criteria, representing 64 LMIC over 16 years of study. Interventions that were found to be cost-effective included cataract surgery (cost/DALY averted range US$5.06-$106.00), elective inguinal hernia repair (cost/DALY averted range US$12.88-$78.18), male circumcision (cost/DALY averted range US$7.38-$319.29), emergency cesarean section (cost/DALY averted range US$18-$3,462.00), and cleft lip and palate repair (cost/DALY averted range US$15.44-$96.04). A small district hospital with basic surgical services was also found to be highly cost-effective (cost/DALY averted 1 US$0.93), as were larger hospitals offering emergency and trauma surgery (cost/DALY averted US$32.78-$223.00). This compares favorably with other standard public health interventions, such as oral rehydration therapy (US$1,062.00), vitamin A supplementation (US$6.00-$12.00), breast feeding promotion (US$930.00), and highly active anti-retroviral therapy for HIV (US$922.00). CONCLUSIONS: Simple surgical interventions that are life-saving and disability-preventing should be considered as part of public health policy in LMIC. We recommend an investment in surgical care and its integration with other public health measures at the district hospital level, rather than investment in single disease strategies.

Value innovation: an important aspect of global surgical care.

INTRODUCTION: Limited resources in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) drive tremendous innovation in medicine, as well as in other fields. It is not often recognized that several important surgical tools and methods, widely used in high-income countries, have their origins in LMICs. Surgical care around the world stands much to gain from these innovations. In this paper, we provide a short review of some of these successful innovations and their origins that have had an important impact in healthcare delivery worldwide. REVIEW: Examples of LMIC innovations that have been adapted in high-income countries include the Bogotá bag for temporary abdominal wound closure, the orthopaedic external fixator for complex fractures, a hydrocephalus fluid valve for normal pressure hydrocephalus, and intra-ocular lens and manual small incision cataract surgery. LMIC innovations that have had tremendous potential global impact include mosquito net mesh for inguinal hernia repair, and a flutter valve for intercostal drainage of pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: Surgical innovations from LMICs have been shown to have comparable outcomes at a fraction of the cost of tools used in high-income countries. These innovations have the potential to revolutionize global surgical care. Advocates should actively seek out these innovations, campaign for the financial gains from these innovations to benefit their originators and their countries, and find ways to develop and distribute them locally as well as globally.

Unplanned readmissions, community socioeconomic factors, and their effects on long-term survival after complex thoracic aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated community socioeconomic factors in patients who had unplanned readmission after undergoing proximal aortic surgery (ascending aorta, aortic root, or arch). METHODS: Unplanned readmissions for any reason within 60 days of the index procedure were reviewed by race, acuity at presentation, and gender. We also evaluated 3 community socioeconomic factors: poverty, household income, and education. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess long-term survival differences by group (race, acuity, and gender). RESULTS: Among 2339 patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery during the 20-year study period and were discharged alive, our team identified 146 (6.2%) unplanned readmissions. Compared with White patients, Black patients lived in areas characterized by more widespread poverty (20.8% vs 11.1%; P = .0003), lower income ($42,776 vs $65,193; P = .0007), and fewer residents with a high school diploma (73.7% vs 90.1%; P < .0001). Compared with patients whose index operation was elective, patients who had urgent or emergency index procedures lived in areas with lower income ($54,425 vs $64,846; P = .01) and fewer residents with a high school diploma (81.1% vs 89.2%; P = .005). Community socioeconomic factors did not differ by gender. Four- and 6-year survival estimates were 63.1% and 63.1% for Black patients versus 89.1% and 83.0% for White patients (P = .0009). No significant differences by acuity or gender were found. CONCLUSIONS: Among readmitted patients, Black patients and patients who had emergency surgery had less favorable community socioeconomic factors and poorer long-term survival. Earlier and more frequent follow-up in these patients should be considered. Developing off-campus clinics and specific postdischarge measures targeting these patients is important.

Beyond Policy: Strengthening District Level Access to Surgery Is Critical to Achieving Surgical Equity in Universal Health Coverage Comment on "Improving Access to Surgery Through Surgical Team Mentoring - Policy Lessons From Group Model Building With Local Stakeholders in Malawi".

District level access to surgical care has been identified as the rate limiting step to increasing access to the bottom billion and relies on a complex interplay of patient-related and system-based factors that underlie the provision of quality surgical care at point of care. Surgical mentoring via visiting teams, use of current proprietary technologies to enhance communication, establishment of a national surgical coordinator and multi-stakeholder engagement with creative cost-sharing have all demonstrated promising results. Regardless of strategic implementation frameworks, system-based thinking coupled with implementation science with practical solutions will be necessary to inform stakeholders on the best way forward in their respective geographic field of work charting a path towards surgical equity in universal health coverage (UHC).

Achieving global surgical excellence: an evidence-based framework to guide surgical quality improvement programs in low and middle income countries.

Objectives: There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for enhancing global surgical care delivery. We propose a set of recommendations to serve as a framework to guide surgical quality improvement and scale-up initiatives in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Methods: From January-December 2019, we reviewed the available literature and their application toward LMIC settings. The first initiative was the establishment of Best Practices Recommendations intended to summarize best-level evidence around quality improvement processes that have shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in LMICs. The GRADE level of evidence and strength of the recommendation were assigned in accordance with the WHO handbook for guidelines development. The second initiative was the scale-up of principles and practices by establishing international expert consensus on the optimal organization of surgical services in LMICs using a modified Delphi methodology. Results: Recommendations for three topic areas were established: reducing surgical site infections, improving quality of trauma systems, and interventions to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality. 27 studies were included in a quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis for interventions reducing surgical site infections, 27 studies for interventions improving the quality of trauma systems, and 14 studies for interventions reducing maternal and perinatal mortality. Using Delphi methodology, an international expert panel established consensus that district hospitals should place the highest priority on developing surgical services for low complexity, high volume conditions. At the national level, emergency and essential surgical care should be integrated within national Universal Health Coverage frameworks. Conclusions: This project fills a critical cap in the rapidly developing field of global surgery: gathering evidence-based, practical, and cost-effective solutions that will serve as a guide for the efficient planning and allocation of resources necessary to promote quality and safe essential surgical services in LMICs.

International consensus recommendations for the optimal prioritisation and distribution of surgical services in low-income and middle-income countries: a modified Delphi process.

OBJECTIVES: To develop consensus statements regarding the regional-level or district-level distribution of surgical services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and prioritisation of service scale-up. DESIGN: This work was conducted using a modified Delphi consensus process. Initial statements were developed by the International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Safe Surgery and Anesthesia Working Group of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma and Anesthesia Care (G4 Alliance) and the International Society of Surgery based on previously published literature and clinical expertise. The Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies framework was applied. SETTING: The Working Group convened in Suva, Fiji for a meeting hosted by the Ministry of Health and Medical Services to develop the initial statements. Local experts were invited to participate. The modified Delphi process was conducted through an electronically administered anonymised survey. PARTICIPANTS: Expert LMIC surgeons were nominated for participation in the modified Delphi process based on criteria developed by the Working Group. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The consensus panel voted on statements regarding the organisation of surgical services, principles for scale-up and prioritisation of scale-up. Statements reached consensus if there was ≥80% agreement among participants. RESULTS: Fifty-three nominated experts from 27 LMICs voted on 27 statements in two rounds. Ultimately, 26 statements reached consensus and comprise the current recommendations. The statements covered three major themes: which surgical services should be decentralised or regionalised; how the implementation of these services should be prioritised; and principles to guide LMIC governments and international visiting teams in scaling up safe, accessible and affordable surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent the first step towards the development of international guidelines for the scaling up of surgical services in LMICs. They constitute the best available basis for policymaking, planning and allocation of resources for strengthening surgical systems.

Strengthening surgical services at the soum (first-referral) hospital: the WHO emergency and essential surgical care (EESC) program in Mongolia.

BACKGROUND: Provision of surgical care continues to receive little attention and funding despite the growing burden of surgical disease worldwide. In 2004, The World Health Organization (WHO) established the Emergency and Essential Surgical Care (EESC) program, which was designed to strengthen surgical services at the first-referral hospital. There are limited data documenting the implementation and scale-up of such services. We describe the nationwide implementation of the EESC program in Mongolia over a 6 year period. METHODS: Surgical services were increased in rural areas of Mongolia using the WHO Integrated Management of Emergency and Essential Surgical Care (IMEESC) toolkit from 2004 to 2010. Fund of knowledge tests and program evaluation was done to measure uptake, response, and perceived importance of the program. Two years after the pilot sites were launched, programmatic impact on short-term process measures was evaluated using the WHO Monitoring and Evaluation form. RESULTS: The program was implemented in 14 aimags/provinces (66.67 %) and 178 soum hospitals (52.66 %). Fund of knowledge scores increased from 47.72 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 40.7-54.7) to 77.9 % (95 % CI 70.1-85.7, p = 0.0001) after the training program. 1 year post-training, there was a 57.1 % increase in the availability of emergency rooms, 59.1 % increase in the supply of emergency kits, a 73.64 % increase in the recording of emergency care cases, and a 46.66 % increase in the provision of facility and instrument usage instructions at the pilot sites. CONCLUSIONS: The EESC program was successfully implemented and scaled up at a national level with improvements in short-term process measures.

A survey of surgical capacity in rural southern Nigeria: opportunities for change.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing recognition of the massive surgical burden of disease, unmet need, and disparities in access to care in many African countries, little is known about their capacity to deliver surgical, obstetric, emergency, and anesthetic care, particularly in the rural areas where up to 50% of the population lives. This study aimed to quantify the surgical capacity of select healthcare facilities in rural southern Nigeria in five key areas: Workforce, Infrastructure, Skill, Equipment, and Supplies. METHODS: We assessed the surgical capacity of 41 private, rural hospitals in southern Nigeria using the Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies survey tool developed by Surgeons OverSeas. The survey was administered to surgical practitioners during their annual conference in November 2011. RESULTS: Among the 41 hospitals surveyed, general practitioners (52.1%) constituted most of the surgical workforce. Only one anesthesiologist was available in 16 secondary hospitals. Although most of the primary and secondary hospitals had running water (82.3%), a designated emergency room (80.5%), and medical records (95.9%), only 50.3% of all hospitals had electricity through the power grid. Also, only 37.5% of all facilities had a blood bank and 43.8% had an X-ray machine. Common surgical procedures were done by most of the facilities; however, cricothyroidotomy, clubfoot repair, and obstetric fistula repair were scarcely done. Less than half of the facilities provided general anesthesia, only 20% have an anesthesia machine, and 44.5% have a pulse oximeter. CONCLUSION: Severe shortages in key areas should motivate stakeholders to devote more effort and resources to strengthening surgical capacity in rural southern Nigeria.

Scaling up of safety and quality improvement interventions in perioperative care: a systematic scoping review of implementation strategies and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 5 billion people lack access to safe surgical care with more deaths due to lack of quality care rather than lack of access. While many proven quality improvement (QI) interventions exist in high-income countries, implementing them in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) faces further challenges. Currently, theory-driven, systematically articulated knowledge of the factors that support successful scale-up of QI in perioperative care in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify all perioperative safety and QI interventions applied at scale in LMICs and evaluate their implementation mechanisms using implementation theory. METHODS: Systematic scoping review of perioperative QI interventions in LMICs from 1960 to 2020. Studies were identified through Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Data were extracted in two phases: (1) abstract review to identify the range of QI interventions; (2) studies describing scale-up (three or more sites), had full texts retrieved and analysed for; implementation strategies and scale-up frameworks used; and implementation outcomes reported. RESULTS: We screened 45 128 articles, identifying 137 studies describing perioperative QI interventions across 47 countries. Only 31 of 137 (23%) articles reported scale-up with the most common intervention being the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. The most common implementation strategies were training and educating stakeholders, developing stakeholder relationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies. Reporting of implementation mechanisms was generally poor; and although the components of scale-up frameworks were reported, relevant frameworks were rarely referenced. CONCLUSION: Many studies report implementation of QI interventions, but few report successful scale-up from single to multiple-site implementation. Greater use of implementation science methodology may help determine what works, where and why, thereby aiding more widespread scale-up and dissemination of perioperative QI interventions.

Ending Neglected Surgical Diseases (NSDs): Definitions, Strategies, and Goals for the Next Decade.

While there has been overall progress in addressing the lack of access to surgical care worldwide, untreated surgical conditions in developing countries remain an underprioritized issue. Significant backlogs of advanced surgical disease called neglected surgical diseases (NSDs) result from massive disparities in access to quality surgical care. We aim to discuss a framework for a public health rights-based initiative designed to prevent and eliminate the backlog of NSDs in developing countries. We defined NSDs and set forth six criteria that focused on the applicability and practicality of implementing a program designed to eradicate the backlog of six target NSDs from the list of 44 Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) surgical interventions. The human rights-based approach (HRBA) was used to clarify NSDs role within global health. Literature reviews were conducted to ascertain the global disease burden, estimated global backlog, average cost per treatment, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted from the treatment, return on investment, and potential gain and economic impact of the NSDs identified. Six index NSDs were identified, including neglected cleft lips and palate, clubfoot, cataracts, hernias and hydroceles, injuries, and obstetric fistula. Global definitions were proposed as a starting point towards the prevention and elimination of the backlog of NSDs. Defining a subset of neglected surgical conditions that illustrates society's role and responsibility in addressing them provides a framework through the HRBA lens for its eventual eradication.

Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care as a Critical Scale-up Strategy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Comment on "Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care: A Review of Evidence for the Optimal Distribution of Surgical Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries".

As global attention to improve the quality, safety and access to surgical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) increases, the need for evidence-based strategies to reliably scale-up the quality and quantity of surgical services becomes ever more pertinent. Iversen et al discuss the optimal distribution of surgical services, whether through decentralization or regionalization, and propose a strategy that utilizes the dimensions of acuity, complexity and prevalence of surgical conditions to inform national priorities. Proposed expansion of this strategy to encompass levels of scale-up prioritization is discussed in this commentary. The decentralization of emergency obstetric services in LMICs shows promising results and should be further explored. The dearth of evidence of regionalization in LMICs, on the other hand, limits extrapolation of lessons learned. Nevertheless, principles from the successful regionalization of certain services such as trauma care in high-income countries (HICs) can be adapted to LMIC settings and can provide the backbone for innovation in service delivery and safety.