A multicountry health partnership programme to establish sustainable trauma training in east, central, and southern African countries using a cascading trauma management course model.

BACKGROUND: Injury accounts for 267 000 deaths annually in the nine College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA-ASESA) countries, and the introduction of a sustainable standardised trauma training programme across all cadres is essential. We have delivered a primary trauma care (PTC) programme that encompasses both a "provider" and "training the trainers" course using a "cascading training model" across nine COSECSA countries. The first "primary course" in each country is delivered by a team of UK instructors, followed by "cascading courses" to more rural regions led by newly qualified local instructors, with mentorship provided by UK instructors. This study examines the programme's effectiveness in terms of knowledge, clinical confidence, and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We collected pre-training and post-training data from 1030 candidates (119 clinical officers, 540 doctors, 260 nurses, and 111 medical students) trained over 28 courses (nine primary and 19 cascading courses) between Dec 5, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013. Knowledge was assessed with a validated PTC multiple choice questionnaire and clinical confidence ratings of eight trauma scenarios, measured against covariants of sex, age, clinical experience, job roles, country, and health institution's workload. FINDINGS: Post-training, a significant improvement was noted across all cadres in knowledge (19% [95% CI 18·0-19·5]; p<0·05) and clinical confidence (22% [20·3-22·3]; p<0·05). Non-doctors showed a greater improvement in knowledge (22% vs 16%; p<0·05) and confidence (24% vs 20%; p<0·05) than doctors. Candidates attending cascading courses also showed larger improvements in knowledge (21% vs 15%; p<0·002) and clinical confidence (23% vs 19%; p<0·002) than their primary course counterparts. Multivariate regression analysis showed that attending cascading courses (Coef=4·83, p<0·05), being a nurse (Coef=3·89, p=0·007) or a clinical officer (Coef=4·11, p=0·015), and attending a course in Kenya (Coef=9·55, p<0·002) or Tanzania (Coef=9·40, p<0·002) were strong predictors to improvement in multiple choice questionnaire performance. However, improvement in clinical confidence was affected by the job-role of the clinical officer (Coef=6·49, p=0·002) and attending a course in Kenya (Coef=16·12, p<0·02) or Tanzania (Coef=7·01, p<0·05). Cascading courses were on average £2000 less expensive than primary care courses. INTERPRETATION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest series in the literature on multicountry trauma management training in sub-Saharan Africa. Our study supports the concept of cascading courses as an educationally and cost-effective method in delivering vital trauma training in low-resource settings led by local clinicians. FUNDING: Health Partnership Scheme through the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Delivering trauma training to multiple health-worker cadres in nine sub-Saharan African countries: lessons learnt from the COOL programme.

BACKGROUND: Africa has one of the highest road-traffic mortality rates in the world. Nurses and clinical officers play a pivotal part in trauma care as a result of substantial shortage of doctors. The COOL (COSECSA-Oxford-Orthopaedic-Link) programme has delivered primary trauma care (PTC) training in nine sub-Saharan African countries across a wide cadre of health-workers (540 doctors, 260 nurses, 119 clinical officers, and 111 medical students). This prospective study investigates the effect of 28 consecutive PTCs and the training challenges that exist between different cadres and health institutions. METHODS: The course trains delegates in key trauma concepts: primary survey, airway management, chest injuries, major haemorrhage, and paediatric trauma. Candidates' knowledge of these concepts was assessed before and after the course with a validated 30 Single-Best-Answer multiple choice questionnaire. Assessment scores were analysed by cadre, urban (383 candidates) or rural institutions (647 candidates), and sex (657 men, 373 women). A concept was categorised as being poorly understood when half the candidates achieved less than 50% of the correct answers. Descriptive statistics and MANOVA analysis were used, with an alpha level set at 0·05. FINDINGS: 1030 PTC providers were trained between Dec 5, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013. There was significant increase in multiple choice questionnaire (58% to 77%, p<0·05) and clinical confidence (68% to 90%, p<0·05) scores among delegates post course, with independent covariants of institution location and cadre significantly affecting post-course scores. Doctors achieved satisfactory scores on all key concepts (67% to 84%, p<0·05). Clinical officers (all concepts 53% to 76%, p<0·05) particularly struggled with paediatric trauma (94 candidates <50%, mean 24·23 [95% CI 19-30]). Nurses (all concepts 42% to 64%, p<0·05) had difficulty with chest injuries (203 pre-course to 153 post-course candidates <50%, mean 49% [95% CI 45-52]) and paediatric trauma (212 pre-course to 161 post-course candidates ≤50%, post course mean 46% [95% CI 43-53]). Medical students achieved satisfactory scores in all concepts (overall 53% to 74%, p<0·05). Health-workers based in urban hospitals (82%) outperformed those in rural hospitals (72%) (p=0·001) and sex had no significant effect on performance (p=0·07). INTERPRETATION: Our study shows that PTC courses led to improvement in trauma management knowledge and clinical confidence among a wide cadre of health-workers. However, these are new concepts for many front-line health-workers, and regular refresher training will be required. There is also a difference in understanding of key trauma concepts among the different cadres. Future training in this region should address areas of weakness unique to each cadre, particularly paediatric trauma care. FUNDING: Health Partnership Scheme through the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Peri-operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in K-Wire Fixation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: There are currently no standardised guidelines on whether antibiotic prophylaxis is required for Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation to minimise the risk of surgical site infection when used in patients undergoing clean orthopaedic surgery. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic in K-wire fixation when used in either in trauma or elective orthopaedics. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies comparing the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis group versus those without antibiotic in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in which K-wire fixation was used. Incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome. Random effects modelling was used for the analysis. Results: Four retrospective cohort studies and one RCT were identified with a total of 2316 patients. There was no significant difference between the prophylactic antibiotic and no antibiotic groups in terms of incidence of SSI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, P = 0.18). Conclusions: There is no significant difference in administering peri-operative antibiotics for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery using K-wire.