A qualitative study exploring contextual challenges to surgical care provision in 21 LMICs.

BACKGROUND: Billions of people worldwide are without access to safe, affordable, and timely surgical care. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) conducted a qualitative study to understand the contextual challenges to surgical care provision in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and how providers overcome them. METHODS: A semi-structured interview was administered to 143 care providers in 21 LMICs using stratified purposive sampling to include both urban and rural areas and reputational case selection to identify individual providers. Interviews were conducted in Argentina (n=5), Botswana (3), Brazil (10), Cape Verde (4), China (14), Colombia (4), Ecuador (6), Ethiopia (10), India (15), Indonesia (1), Mexico (9), Mongolia (4), Namibia (2), Pakistan (13), Peru (5), Philippines (1), Sierra Leone (11), Tanzania (5), Thailand (2), Uganda (9), and Zimbabwe (15). Local collaborators of LCoGS conducted interviews using a standardised implementation manual and interview guide. Questions revolved around challenges or barriers in the area of access to care for patients; challenges or barriers in the area of in-hospital care for patients; and challenges or barriers in the area of governance or health policy. De-identified interviews were coded and interpreted by an independent analyst. FINDINGS: Providers across continent and context noted significant geographical, financial, and educational barriers to access. Surgical care provision in the rural hospital setting was hindered by a paucity of trained workforce, and inadequacies in basic infrastructure, equipment, supplies, and access to banked blood. In urban areas, providers face high patient volumes combined with staff shortages, minimal administrative support, and poor interhospital care coordination. At a policy level, providers identified regulations that were inconsistent with the realities of low-resource care provision (eg, a requirement to provide 'free' care to certain populations but without any guarantee for funding). Regional variation did exist on some matters, particularly related to prevalence of patient-provider mistrust and supply chain failures. Everywhere, providers have created innovative workarounds to overcome some of these barriers, such as clever financing mechanisms for planned surgery (eg, raising donated farm animals for cash in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and India), provision in scheduling and accommodations to facilitate patients from afar, reduction of cost and waste through re-sterilisation of disposable supplies, and locally sourcing consumables (eg, hand cleaning solution made of alcohol from the local distillery in India). INTERPRETATION: Although some variation exists between countries, the challenges to surgical care provision are largely consistent and based on local resource availability; underfunded rural hospitals faced similar challenges worldwide. Global efforts to scale-up surgical services can focus on these commonalities (eg, investments in infrastructure, workforce), while local governments can tailor solutions to key contextual differences (eg, community-based outreach, supply chains, professional management, and interhospital coordination). FUNDING: None.

Geospatial mapping to estimate timely access to surgical care in nine low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery calls for universal access to safe, affordable, and timely surgical care. Two requisite components of timely access are (1) the ability to reach a surgical provider in a given timeframe, and (2) the ability to receive appropriately prompt care from that provider. We chose a threshold of 2 h in view of its relevance in time-to-death in post-partum haemorrhage. Here, we use geospatial mapping to enumerate the percentage of a nation's population living within 2 h of a surgeon and the surgeon-to-population ratio for each provider. METHODS: Geospatial mapping was used to identify the population living within a 2-h driving distance (access zone) of a health-care facility staffed by a surgeon. Surgeon locations were extracted from Ministries of Health, professional society databases, and published literature for countries which had available data. Data were reviewed by individuals knowledgeable of in-country distribution. Spatial distribution of providers was mapped with Google Maps engine. Access zones were constructed around every provider through estimation of driving times in Google Maps. The number of people living within zones was estimated with the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center Population Estimation Service. Surgeon-to-population ratios were constructed for every individual access zone and averaged to report a single ratio. FINDINGS: Results (% country's population living within an access zone; average surgeon:population ratio within all access zones) are reported for nine countries with available data: Somaliland (16·9%; 1:118 306), Botswana (31·0%; 1:64 635), Ethiopia (39·6%; 1:229 696), Rwanda (41·3%; 1:158 484), Namibia (43·4%; 1:69 385), Zimbabwe (54%; 1:148 292), Mongolia (55·5%; 1:10 500), Sierra Leone (70·3%; 1:106 742), and Pakistan (84·4%, 1:139 299). Surgeon-to-population ratios vary substantially even within countries; in Sierra Leone, urban access zones have a ratio of 1:45 058 and rural access zones have a ratio of 1:467 929. INTERPRETATION: Surgical access is poor in many low-income and middle-income countries, even when using a narrow definition of surgical access consisting only of timeliness. Living outside of an access zone makes timely access to surgical care highly unlikely, and in view of low surgeon-to-population ratios and poor prehospital transport, even living within a 2-h access zone might not confer 2-h access. Investments in infrastructure and training must be prioritised to address widespread disparity in access to timely surgery. FUNDING: None.

Bellwether Procedures for Monitoring and Planning Essential Surgical Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Caesarean Delivery, Laparotomy, and Treatment of Open Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical conditions represent a significant proportion of the global burden of disease, and therefore, surgery is an essential component of health systems. Achieving universal health coverage requires effective monitoring of access to surgery. However, there is no widely accepted standard for the required capabilities of a first-level hospital. We aimed to determine whether a group of operations could be used to describe the delivery of essential surgical care. METHODS: We convened an expert panel to identify procedures that might indicate the presence of resources needed to treat an appropriate range of surgical conditions at first-level hospitals. Using data from the World Health Organization Emergency and Essential Surgical Care Global database, collected using the WHO Situational Analysis Tool (SAT), we analysed whether the ability to perform each of these procedures-which we term "bellwether procedures"-was associated with performing a full range of essential surgical procedures. FINDINGS: The ability to perform caesarean delivery, laparotomy, and treatment of open fracture was closely associated with performing all obstetric, general, basic, emergency, and orthopaedic procedures (p < 0.001) in the population that responded to the WHO SAT Survey. Procedures including cleft lip, cataract, and neonatal surgery did not correlate with performing the bellwether procedures. INTERPRETATION: Caesarean delivery, laparotomy, and treatment of open fractures should be standard procedures performed at first-level hospitals. With further validation in other populations, local managers and health ministries may find this useful as a benchmark for what first-level hospitals can and should be able to perform on a 24/7 basis in order to ensure delivery of emergency and essential surgical care to their population. Those procedures which did not correlate with the bellwether procedures can be referred to a specialized centre or collected for treatment by a visiting specialist team.

The How Project: understanding contextual challenges to global surgical care provision in low-resource settings.

INTRODUCTION: 5 billion people around the world do not have access to safe, affordable, timely surgical care. This series of qualitative interviews was launched by The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) with the aim of understanding the contextual challenges-the specific circumstances-faced by surgical care providers in low-resource settings who care for impoverished patients, and how those providers overcome these challenges. METHODS: From January 2014 to February 2015, 20 LCoGS collaborators conducted semistructured interviews with 148 surgical providers in low-resource settings in 21 countries. Stratified purposive sampling was used to include both rural and urban providers, and reputational case selection identified individuals. Interviewers were trained with an implementation manual. Following immersion into de-identified texts from completed interviews, topical coding and further analysis of coded texts was completed by an independent analyst with periodic validation from a second analyst. RESULTS: Providers described substantial financial, geographic and cultural barriers to patient access. Rural surgical teams reported a lack of a trained workforce and insufficient infrastructure, equipment, supplies and banked blood. Urban providers face overcrowding, exacerbated by minimal clinical and administrative support, and limited interhospital care coordination. Many providers across contexts identified national health policies that do not reflect the realities of resource-poor settings. Some findings were region-specific, such as weak patient-provider relationships and unreliable supply chains. In all settings, surgical teams have created workarounds to deliver care despite the challenges. DISCUSSION: While some differences exist between countries, the barriers to safe surgery and anaesthesia are overall consistent and resource-dependent. Efforts to advance and expand global surgery must address these commonalities, while local policymakers can tailor responses to key contextual differences.