Why do women with early breast cancer in Northern Sri Lanka undergo mastectomy? Decision-making and ways forward.

BACKGROUND: Despite robust evidence confirming equivalent survival rates and better cosmetic outcomes with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy compared to mastectomy, the rates of mastectomy among women with early breast cancer have not declined significantly in Sri Lanka. This study explores views on the surgical treatment of breast cancer among Northern Sri Lankan women who were eligible for BCS but underwent mastectomy. METHODS: An exploratory descriptive qualitative study was carried out among 15 women who underwent mastectomy for early breast cancer. Patients who were referred to the Tellippalai Trail Cancer Hospital for adjuvant therapy after mastectomy and matched the study criteria were recruited. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed in Tamil, translated into English, coded using QDA Miner Lite software, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Nine out of 15 participants were either not aware of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) as a treatment option or their eligibility for BCS at the time of mastectomy. According to participant narratives, the treating team had recommended mastectomy to most participants. While many opted for mastectomy believing that it was associated with lower rates of recurrence and spread compared to BCS, these beliefs were frequently reinforced by the treating team. The pros and cons of the two approaches had not been discussed before surgery with most participants. In the absence of information, family and friends weighed in on the decision to opt for mastectomy, ultimately resulting in feelings of loss and regret in most instances. CONCLUSION: Most participants were not aware that they were eligible for BCS. These information gaps need to be urgently addressed for women to make informed decisions about their health.

Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective care for surgical patients requires high-quality perioperative care. In high-income countries (HICs), care pathways have been shown to be effective in standardizing clinical practice to optimize patient outcomes. Little is known about their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative mortality is substantially higher. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify and describe studies in peer-reviewed journals on the implementation or evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, WHO Global Index, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and SciELO alongside citation searching. Descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and framework analyses were used to summarize the setting, outcome measures, implementation strategies, and facilitators and barriers to implementation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. The majority of pathways were set in tertiary hospitals in lower-middle-income countries and were focused on elective surgery. Only six studies were assessed as high quality. Most pathways were adapted from international guidance and had been implemented in a single hospital. The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were cost of interventions and lack of available resources. CONCLUSIONS: Studies from a geographically diverse set of low and lower-middle-income countries demonstrate increasing use of perioperative pathways adapted to resource-poor settings, though there is sparsity of literature from low-income countries, first-level hospitals and emergency surgery. As in HICs, addressing patient and clinician beliefs is a major challenge in improving care. Context-relevant and patient-centered research, including qualitative and implementation studies, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge.

Barriers to Quality Perioperative Care Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Qualitative Rapid Appraisal Study.

BACKGROUND: Provision of timely, safe, and affordable surgical care is an essential component of any high-quality health system. Increasingly, it is recognized that poor quality of care in the perioperative period (before, during, and after surgery) may contribute to significant excess mortality and morbidity. Therefore, improving access to surgical procedures alone will not address the disparities in surgical outcomes globally until the quality of perioperative care is addressed. We aimed to identify key barriers to quality perioperative care delivery for 3 "Bellwether" procedures (cesarean delivery, emergency laparotomy, and long-bone fracture fixation) in 5 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Ten hospitals representing secondary and tertiary facilities from 5 LMICs were purposefully selected: 2 upper-middle income (Colombia and South Africa); 2 lower-middle income (Sri Lanka and Tanzania); and 1 lower income (Uganda). We used a rapid appraisal design (pathway mapping, ethnography, and interviews) to map out and explore the complexities of the perioperative pathway and care delivery for the Bellwether procedures. The framework approach was used for data analysis, with triangulation across different data sources to identify barriers in the country and pattern matching to identify common barriers across the 5 LMICs. RESULTS: We developed 25 pathway maps, undertook >30 periods of observation, and held >40 interviews with patients and clinical staff. Although the extent and impact of the barriers varied across the LMIC settings, 4 key common barriers to safe and effective perioperative care were identified: (1) the fragmented nature of the care pathways, (2) the limited human and structural resources available for the provision of care, (3) the direct and indirect costs of care for patients (even in health systems for which care is ostensibly free of charge), and (4) patients' low expectations of care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key barriers to effective perioperative care in LMICs. Addressing these barriers is important if LMIC health systems are to provide safe, timely, and affordable provision of the Bellwether procedures.

Mixed methods study protocol for combining stakeholder-led rapid evaluation with near real-time continuous registry data to facilitate evaluations of quality of care in intensive care units.

Background: Improved access to healthcare in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not equated to improved health outcomes. Absence or unsustained quality of care is partly to blame. Improving outcomes in intensive care units (ICUs) requires delivery of complex interventions by multiple specialties working in concert, and the simultaneous prevention of avoidable harms associated with the illness and the treatment interventions. Therefore, successful design and implementation of improvement interventions requires understanding of the behavioural, organisational, and external factors that determine care delivery and the likelihood of achieving sustained improvement. We aim to identify care processes that contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes in ICUs located in LMICs and to establish barriers and enablers for improving the care processes. Methods: Using rapid evaluation methods, we will use four data collection methods: 1) registry embedded indicators to assess quality of care processes and their associated outcomes; 2) process mapping to provide a preliminary framework to understand gaps between current and desired care practices; 3) structured observations of processes of interest identified from the process mapping and; 4) focus group discussions with stakeholders to identify barriers and enablers influencing the gap between current and desired care practices. We will also collect self-assessments of readiness for quality improvement. Data collection and analysis will be led by local stakeholders, performed in parallel and through an iterative process across eight countries: Kenya, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam. Conclusions: The results of our study will provide essential information on where and how care processes can be improved to facilitate better quality of care to critically ill patients in LMICs; thus, reduce preventable mortality and morbidity in ICUs. Furthermore, understanding the rapid evaluation methods that will be used for this study will allow other researchers and healthcare professionals to carry out similar research in ICUs and other health services.