Generating Actionable Insights from Patient Medical Records and Structured Clinical Knowledge.

While adherence to clinical guidelines improves the quality and consistency of care, personalized healthcare also requires a deep understanding of individual disease models and treatment plans. The structured preparation of medical routine data in a certain clinical context, e.g. a treatment pathway outlined in a medical guideline, is currently a challenging task. Medical data is often stored in diverse formats and systems, and the relevant clinical knowledge defining the context is not available in machine-readable formats. We present an approach to extract information from medical free text documentation by using structured clinical knowledge to guide information extraction into a structured and encoded format, overcoming the known challenges for natural language processing algorithms. Preliminary results have been encouraging, as one of our methods managed to extract 100% of all data-points with 85% accuracy in details. These advancements show the potential of our approach to effectively use unstructured clinical data to elevate the quality of patient care and reduce the workload of medical personnel.

Task-sharing spinal anaesthesia care in three rural Indian hospitals: a non-inferiority randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Task-sharing of spinal anaesthesia care by non-specialist graduate physicians, termed medical officers (MOs), is commonly practised in rural Indian healthcare facilities to mitigate workforce constraints. We sought to assess whether spinal anaesthesia failure rates of MOs were non-inferior to those of consultant anaesthesiologists (CA) following a standardised educational curriculum. METHODS: We performed a randomised, non-inferiority trial in three rural hospitals in Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, India. Patients aged over 18 years with low perioperative risk (ASA I & II) were randomised to receive MO or CA care. Prior to the trial, MOs underwent task-based anaesthesia training, inclusive of remotely accessed lectures, simulation-based training and directly observed anaesthetic procedures and intraoperative care. The primary outcome measure was spinal anaesthesia failure with a non-inferiority margin of 5%. Secondary outcome measures consisted of incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications. FINDINGS: Between 12 July 2019 and 8 June 2020, a total of 422 patients undergoing surgical procedures amenable to spinal anaesthesia care were randomised to receive either MO (231, 54.7%) or CA care (191, 45.2%). Spinal anaesthesia failure rate for MOs (7, 3.0%) was non-inferior to those of CA (5, 2.6%); difference in success rate of 0.4% (95% CI=0.36-0.43%; p=0.80). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups for intraoperative or postoperative complications, or patients' experience of pain during the procedure. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates that failure rates of spinal anaesthesia care provided by trained MOs are non-inferior to care provided by CAs in low-risk surgical patients. This may support policy measures that use task-sharing as a means of expanding anaesthesia care capacity in rural Indian hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04438811.

Simulation capacity building in rural Indian hospitals: a 1-year follow-up qualitative analysis.

Introduction: The benefits of simulation-based medical training are well described. The most effective way to plant and scale simulation training in rural locations remains undescribed. We sought to plant simulation training programmes for anaesthesia emergencies in two rural Indian hospitals. Methods: Two Indian consultant anaesthetists without experience in medical simulation underwent a 3-day course at the Boston Children's Hospital's (BCH) Simulator Program. They returned to their institutions and launched simulation programmes with an airway manikin and mock patient monitor. The 1-year experience was evaluated using individual, in-depth interviews of simulation facilitators. Three staff members (responsible for facilitating medical simulations over the prior year) at two rural hospitals in India were interviewed. None attended the BCH training; instead, they received on-the-job training from the BCH-trained, consultant anaesthetist colleagues. Results: Successes included organisational adoption of simulation training with exercises 1 year after the initial BCH-training, increased interdisciplinary teamwork and improved clinical competency in managing emergencies. Barriers to effective, local implementation of simulation programmes fell into three categories: time required to run simulations, fixed and rigid roles, and variable resources. Thematic improvement requests were for standardised resources to help train simulation facilitators and demonstrate to participants a well-run simulation, in addition to context-sensitive scenarios. Conclusion: An in-person training of simulation facilitators to promote medical simulation programmes in rural hospitals produced ongoing simulation programmes 1 year later. In order to make these programmes sustainable, however, increased investment in developing simulation facilitators is required. In particular, simulation facilitators must be prepared to formally train other simulation facilitators, too.

Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. METHODS: This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. DISCUSSION: This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338.