Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
World J Surg ; 39(9): 2153-60, 2015 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26067632

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines for the provision of safe anaesthesia from the World Health Organization and the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) are unachievable in a majority of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) worldwide. METHODS: Current guidelines for anaesthesia and patient safety provisions from the WHO and WFSA are compared with local ability to achieve these recommendations in LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: Influential international organizations have historically published anaesthesia guidelines, but for the most part, without impacting substantial documentable changes or outcomes in low-income environments. This analysis, and subsequent recommendations, reviews the effectiveness of existing strategies for international guidelines, and proposes practical, step-wise implementation of patient safety approaches for LMICs.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia/standards , Anesthesiology/standards , Developing Countries , Patient Safety , Societies, Medical , World Health Organization , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic
2.
World J Surg ; 39(4): 856-64, 2015 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24841805

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The unmet global burden of surgical disease is substantial. Currently, two billion people do not have access to emergency and essential surgical care. This results in unnecessary deaths from injury, infection, complications of pregnancy, and abdominal emergencies. Inadequately treated surgical disease results in disability, and many children suffer deformity without corrective surgery. METHODS: A consensus meeting was held between representatives of Surgical and Anaesthetic Colleges and Societies to obtain agreement about which indicators were the most appropriate and credible. The literature and state of national reporting of perioperative mortality rates was reviewed by the authors. RESULTS: There is a need for a credible national and/or regional indicator that is relevant to emergency and essential surgical care. We recommend introducing the perioperative mortality rate (POMR) as an indicator of access to and safety of surgery and anaesthesia. POMR should be measured at two time periods: death on the day of surgery and death before discharge from hospital or within 30 days of the procedure, whichever is sooner. The rate should be expressed as the number of deaths (numerator) over the number of procedures (denominator). The option of before-discharge or 30 days is practical for those low- to middle-income countries where postdischarge follow-up is likely to be incomplete, but it allows those that currently can report 30-day mortality rates to continue to do so. Clinical interpretation of POMR at a hospital or health service level will be facilitated by risk stratification using age, urgency (elective and emergency), procedure/procedure group, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. CONCLUSIONS: POMR should be reported as a health indicator by all countries and regions of the world. POMR reporting is feasible, credible, achieves a consensus of acceptance for reporting at national level. Hospital and Service level POMR requires interpretation using simple measures of risk adjustment such as urgency, age, the condition being treated or the procedure being performed and ASA status.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia/standards , Perioperative Period/mortality , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Surgical Procedures, Operative/standards , Health Services Accessibility , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Patient Discharge , Risk Adjustment , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL