The Global Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Workforce.

Importance: A core component of delivering care of head and neck diseases is an adequate workforce. The World Health Organization report, Multi-Country Assessment of National Capacity to Provide Hearing Care, captured primary workforce estimates from 68 member states in 2012, noting that response rates were a limitation and that updated more comprehensive data are needed. Objective: To establish comprehensive workforce metrics for global otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) with updated data from more countries/territories. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional electronic survey characterizing the OHNS workforce was disseminated from February 10 to June 22, 2022, to professional society leaders, medical licensing boards, public health officials, and practicing OHNS clinicians. Main Outcome: The OHNS workforce per capita, stratified by income and region. Results: Responses were collected from 121 of 195 countries/territories (62%). Survey responses specifically reported on OHNS workforce from 114 countries/territories representing 84% of the world's population. The global OHNS clinician density was 2.19 (range, 0-61.7) OHNS clinicians per 100 000 population. The OHNS clinician density varied by World Bank income group with higher-income countries associated with a higher density of clinicians. Regionally, Europe had the highest clinician density (5.70 clinicians per 100 000 population) whereas Africa (0.18 clinicians per 100 000 population) and Southeast Asia (1.12 clinicians per 100 000 population) had the lowest. The OHNS clinicians deliver most of the surgical management of ear diseases and hearing care, rhinologic and sinus diseases, laryngeal disorders, and upper aerodigestive mucosal cancer globally. Conclusion and Relevance: This cross-sectional survey study provides a comprehensive assessment of the global OHNS workforce. These results can guide focused investment in training and policy development to address disparities in the availability of OHNS clinicians.

Surgical wait times and socioeconomic status in a public healthcare system: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: One aim of publicly-funded health care systems is to provide equitable access to care irrespective of ability to pay. At the same time, differences in socioeconomic status (SES) are associated with health outcomes and access to care, including waiting times for surgery. In public systems where both high- and low-SES patients use the same resources, low-SES patients may be adversely impacted in surgical waiting times. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a publicly-funded health system can provide equitable access to surgical care across socioeconomic status. METHODS: Patient-level records were obtained from a comprehensive provincially-administered surgical wait time database, encompassing years 2006-2015 and 98% of Ontario hospitals. Patient SES was determined by linking postal code with the Material and Social Deprivation Index. Surgical waiting times (time in days between decision to treat and surgery) accounted for patient-initiated delays in treatment, and regression analysis considered age, SES, rurality, sex, priority level for surgical urgency (assigned by surgeons), surgical subspecialty, number of visits, and procedure year. RESULTS: For the 4,253,305 surgical episodes, the mean wait time was 62.3 (SD 75.4) days. Repeated measures least squares regression analysis showed the least deprived SES quintile waited 3 days longer than the most deprived quintile. Wait times dropped in the initial study period but then increased. The proportion of procedures exceeding wait time access targets remained low at 11-13%. CONCLUSIONS: The least deprived SES quintile waited the longest, although the absolute difference was small. This study demonstrates that publicly-funded healthcare systems can provide equitable access to surgical care across SES.

Factors affecting job choice among physician anesthesia providers in Uganda: a survey of income composition, discrete choice experiment, and implications for the decision to work rurally.

BACKGROUND: One of the biggest barriers to accessing safe surgical and anesthetic care is lack of trained providers. Uganda has one of the largest deficits in anesthesia providers in the world, and though they are increasing in number, they remain concentrated in the capital city. Salary is an oft-cited barrier to rural job choice, yet the size and sources of anesthesia provider incomes are unclear, and so the potential income loss from taking a rural job is unknown. Additionally, while salary augmentation is a common policy proposal to increase rural job uptake, the relative importance of non-monetary job factors in job choice is also unknown. METHODS: A survey on income sources and magnitude, and a Discrete Choice Experiment examining the relative importance of monetary and non-monetary factors in job choice, was administered to 37 and 47 physician anesthesiologists in Uganda, between May-June 2019. RESULTS: No providers worked only at government jobs. Providers earned most of their total income from a non-government job (50% of income, 23% of working hours), but worked more hours at their government job (36% of income, and 44% of working hours). Providers felt the most important job attributes were the quality of the facility and scope of practice they could provide, and the presence of a colleague (33% and 32% overall relative importance). These were more important than salary and living conditions (14% and 12% importance). CONCLUSIONS: No providers accepted the salary from a government job alone, which was always augmented by other work. However, few providers worked only nongovernment jobs. Non-monetary incentives are powerful influencers of job preference, and may be leveraged as policy options to attract providers. Salary continues to be an important driver of job choice, and jobs with fewer income generating opportunities (e.g. private work in rural areas) are likely to need salary augmentation to attract providers.

Assessment of Anesthesia Capacity in Public Surgical Hospitals in Guatemala.

BACKGROUND: International standards for safe anesthetic care have been developed by the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Whether these standards are met is unknown in many nations, including Guatemala, a country with universal health coverage. We aimed to establish an overview of anesthesia care capacity in public surgical hospitals in Guatemala to help guide public sector health care development. METHODS: In partnership with the Guatemalan Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance (MSPAS), a national survey of all public hospitals providing surgical care was conducted using the WFSA anesthesia facility assessment tool (AFAT) in 2018. Each facility was assessed for infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, medications, equipment, and monitoring practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented. RESULTS: Of the 46 public hospitals in Guatemala in 2018, 36 (78%) were found to provide surgical care, including 20 district, 14 regional, and 2 national referral hospitals. We identified 573 full-time physician surgeons, anesthesiologists, and obstetricians (SAO) in the public sector, with an estimated SAO density of 3.3/100,000 population. There were 300 full-time anesthesia providers working at public hospitals. Physician anesthesiologists made up 47% of these providers, with an estimated physician anesthesiologist density of 0.8/100,000 population. Only 10% of district hospitals reported having an anesthesia provider continuously present intraoperatively during general or neuraxial anesthesia cases. No hospitals reported assessing pain in the immediate postoperative period. While the availability of some medications such as benzodiazepines and local anesthetics was robust (100% availability across all hospitals), not all hospitals had essential medications such as ketamine, epinephrine, or atropine. There were deficiencies in the availability of essential equipment and basic intraoperative monitors, such as end-tidal carbon dioxide detectors (17% availability across all hospitals). Postoperative care and access to resuscitative equipment, such as defibrillators, were also lacking. CONCLUSIONS: This first countrywide, MSPAS-led assessment of anesthesia capacity at public facilities in Guatemala revealed a lack of essential materials and personnel to provide safe anesthesia and surgery. Hospitals surveyed often did not have resources regardless of hospital size or level, which may suggest multiple factors preventing availability and use. Local and national policy initiatives are needed to address these deficiencies.

A survey of nurses' perceptions of the intensive care delirium screening checklist.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium in critically ill patients is common and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Routine delirium screening is recommended by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) is one validated and commonly-used tool, but little is known about nurses'perceptions of using the ICDSC, and of barriers to delirium assessment and treatment. DESIGN: A survey was administered to 189 critical care-trained nurses working on four oncology inpatient units, where the ICDSC has been used for greater than five years. RESULTS: Eighty-four nurses (44%) responded to the survey. Respondents indicated that they had knowledge of delirium, confidence in the ICDSC, and that the ICDSC was useful. Respondents perceived that physicians did not value the ICDSC results. Similar to prior nurse surveys for other delirium screening tools, physicians were the most frequently identified barrier to both delirium assessment and treatment, with other frequent barriers being lack of time, feedback on performance, and knowledge of delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The ICDSC is viewed favourably by nurses with experience using the tool. Future delirium screening programs should encourage physician engagement early in the planning process to help address perceived barriers to delirium assessment and treatment.