Assessment of essential surgical and anaesthesia care capacity: a cross-sectional study in five Pacific Island Countries.

Background: Pacific Island Countries (PICs) face unique challenges in providing surgical care. We assessed the surgical care capacity of five PICs to inform the development of National Surgical, Obstetric and Anaesthesia Plans (NSOAP). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 26 facilities in Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Cook Islands, and Palau using the World Health Organization - Program in Global Surgery and Social Change Surgical Assessment Tool. Findings: Eight referral and 18 first-level hospitals containing 39 functioning operating theatres, 41 post-anaesthesia care beds, and 44 intensive care unit beds served a population of 1,321,000 across the five countries. Most facilities had uninterrupted access to electricity, water, internet, and oxygen. However, CT was only available in 2/8 referral hospitals, MRI in 1/8, and timely blood transfusions in 4/8. The surgical, obstetric, and anaesthetist specialist density per 100,000 people was the highest in Palau (49.7), followed by Cook Islands (22.9), Tonga (9.9), Fiji (7.1), and Vanuatu (5.0). There were four radiologists and 3.5 pathologists across the five countries. Surgical volume per 100,000 people was the lowest in Vanuatu (860), followed by Fiji (2,247), Tonga (2,864), Cook Islands (6,747), and Palau (8,606). The in-hospital peri-operative mortality rate (POMR) was prospectively monitored in Tonga and Cook Islands but retrospectively measured in other countries. POMR was below 1% in all five countries. Interpretation: Whilst PICs share common challenges in providing specialised tertiary services, there is substantial diversity between the countries. Strategies to strengthen surgical systems should incorporate both local contextualisation within each PIC and regional collaboration between PICs. Funding: None.

Global Surgery System Strengthening: It Is All About the Right Metrics.

Progress in achieving "universal access to safe, affordable surgery, and anesthesia care when needed" is dependent on consensus not only about the key messages but also on what metrics should be used to set goals and measure progress. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery not only achieved consensus on key messages but also recommended 6 key metrics to inform national surgical plans and monitor scale-up toward 2030. These metrics measure access to surgery, as well as its timeliness, safety, and affordability: (1) Two-hour access to the 3 Bellwether procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and management of an open fracture); (2) Surgeon, Anesthetist, and Obstetrician workforce >20/100,000; (3) Surgical volume of 5000 procedures/100,000; (4) Reporting of perioperative mortality rate; and (5 and 6) Risk rates of catastrophic expenditure and impoverishment when requiring surgery. This article discusses the definition, validity, feasibility, relevance, and progress with each of these metrics. The authors share their experience of introducing the metrics in the Pacific and sub-Saharan Africa. We identify appropriate messages for each potential stakeholder-the patients, practitioners, providers (health services and hospitals), public (community), politicians, policymakers, and payers. We discuss progress toward the metrics being included in core indicator lists by the World Health Organization and the World Bank and how they have been, or may be, used to inform National Surgical Plans in low- and middle-income countries to scale-up the delivery of safe, affordable, and timely surgical and anesthesia care to all who need it.

Perioperative mortality rate (POMR): a global indicator of access to safe surgery and anaesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: The unmet global burden of surgical disease is substantial. Currently, two billion people do not have access to emergency and essential surgical care. This results in unnecessary deaths from injury, infection, complications of pregnancy, and abdominal emergencies. Inadequately treated surgical disease results in disability, and many children suffer deformity without corrective surgery. METHODS: A consensus meeting was held between representatives of Surgical and Anaesthetic Colleges and Societies to obtain agreement about which indicators were the most appropriate and credible. The literature and state of national reporting of perioperative mortality rates was reviewed by the authors. RESULTS: There is a need for a credible national and/or regional indicator that is relevant to emergency and essential surgical care. We recommend introducing the perioperative mortality rate (POMR) as an indicator of access to and safety of surgery and anaesthesia. POMR should be measured at two time periods: death on the day of surgery and death before discharge from hospital or within 30 days of the procedure, whichever is sooner. The rate should be expressed as the number of deaths (numerator) over the number of procedures (denominator). The option of before-discharge or 30 days is practical for those low- to middle-income countries where postdischarge follow-up is likely to be incomplete, but it allows those that currently can report 30-day mortality rates to continue to do so. Clinical interpretation of POMR at a hospital or health service level will be facilitated by risk stratification using age, urgency (elective and emergency), procedure/procedure group, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. CONCLUSIONS: POMR should be reported as a health indicator by all countries and regions of the world. POMR reporting is feasible, credible, achieves a consensus of acceptance for reporting at national level. Hospital and Service level POMR requires interpretation using simple measures of risk adjustment such as urgency, age, the condition being treated or the procedure being performed and ASA status.