RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Armed conflicts pose a burden on health care services. We sought to assess the surgical capacity and responses of nonmilitary and nongovernmental humanitarian responders in armed conflicts through proxy indicators to identify strategies to address surgical needs. METHODS: We searched 6 databases for articles/studies from January 1, 2013, to March 10, 2023. We included articles detailing the surgical capacity of nonmilitary, nongovernmental organizations operating in armed conflicts. We defined surgical capacity through indicators including the type and number of surgical procedures; number of operating rooms, surgical beds, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and surgical equipment; and type of anesthesia employed. RESULTS: We screened 2,187 abstracts and 279 full texts and included 30 articles/studies. Our sample covered 23 countries and 17 surgical specialties. Most publications focused on surgical capacity assessment (63.3%, 19/30) and surgical and clinical outcomes (63.3%, 19/30). Most articles/studies reported surgical capacity indicators at the hospital (56.7%, 17/30) and multinational (26.7%, 8/30) levels. The number (86.7%, 26/30) and type (76.7%, 23/30) of surgical procedures performed were the most commonly reported. More than one half of the articles (53.3%, 16/30) described strategies to meet surgical needs in armed conflicts. Most strategies addressed information management (68.8%, 11/16), health workforce (62.5%, 10/16), and service delivery (62.5%, 10/16). CONCLUSION: This review collated common approaches for strengthening health care services in armed conflicts. Several articles emphasized strategies for improving information management, service delivery, and workforce capacity. Hence, we call for standardization of response protocols and multilevel collaborations to maintain or even scale up surgical capacity in armed conflicts.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated how surgical and anesthesiology departments adapted their resources in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: This scoping review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews protocol, with Covidence as a screening tool. An initial search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews returned 6,131 results in October 2021. After exclusion of duplicates and abstract screening, 415 articles were included. After full-text screening, 108 articles remained. RESULTS: Most commonly, studies were retrospective in nature (47.22 percent), with data from a single institution (60.19 percent). Nearly all studies occurred in high-income countries (HICs), 78.70 percent, with no articles from low-income countries. The reported responses to the COVID-19 pandemic involving surgical departments were grouped into seven categories, with multiple responses reported in some articles for a total of 192 responses. The most frequently reported responses were changes to surgical department staffing (29.17 percent) and task-shifting or task-sharing of personnel (25.52 percent). CONCLUSION: Our review reflects the mechanisms by which hospital surgical systems responded to the initial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic and reinforced the many changes to hospital policy that occurred in the pandemic. Healthcare systems with robust surgical systems were better able to cope with the initial stress of the COVID-19 pandemic. The well-resourced health systems of HICs reported rapid and dynamic changes by providers to assist in and ultimately improve the care of patients during the pandemic. Surgical system strengthening will allow health systems to be more resilient and prepared for the next disaster.