Investigating the Association Between a Risk-Directed Prophylaxis Protocol and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Validation in a Low-Income Setting.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention protocols in low-income countries is not well known. Different surgical procedures, available medications, and co-occurring diseases imply that existing protocols may need validation in these settings. We assessed the association of a risk-directed PONV prevention protocol on the incidence of PONV and short-term surgical outcomes in a teaching hospital in Rwanda. METHODS: We compared the incidence of PONV during the first 48 hours postoperatively before (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2019; preintervention) and immediately after (July 1, 2019-September 30, 2019; postintervention) implementing an Apfel score-based PONV prevention strategy in 116 adult patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery at Kigali University Teaching Hospital in Rwanda. Secondary outcomes included time to first oral intake, hospital length of stay, and rate of wound dehiscence. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to assess the associated temporal slopes of the outcome before and immediately after implementation of the risk-directed PONV prevention protocol. RESULTS: Compared to just before the intervention, there was no change in the odds of PONV at the beginning of the postintervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.01). There was a decreasing trend in the odds of nausea (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97) per month. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea immediately after implementation of the protocol (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.25-3.72) or in the slope between preintervention and postintervention periods (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.60-3.65). In contrast, there was no change in the odds of vomiting during the preintervention period (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-1.67) per month. The odds of vomiting decreased at the beginning of the postintervention period compared to just before (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P = .004). Finally, there was a significant decrease in the average time to first oral intake (estimated 14 hours less; 95% CI, -25 to -3) when the protocol was first implemented, after adjusting for confounders; however, there was no difference in the slope of the average time to first oral intake between the 2 periods ( P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: A risk-directed PONV prophylaxis protocol was associated with reduced vomiting and time to first oral intake after implementation. There was no substantial difference in the slopes of vomiting incidence and time to first oral intake before and after implementation.

Longer travel time to district hospital worsens neonatal outcomes: a retrospective cross-sectional study of the effect of delays in receiving emergency cesarean section in Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: In low-resource settings, access to emergency cesarean section is associated with various delays leading to poor neonatal outcomes. In this study, we described the delays a mother faces when needing emergency cesarean delivery and assessed the effect of these delays on neonatal outcomes in Rwanda. METHODS: This retrospective study included 441 neonates and their mothers who underwent emergency cesarean section in 2015 at three district hospitals in Rwanda. Four delays were measured: duration of labor prior to hospital admission, travel time from health center to district hospital, time from admission to surgical incision, and time from decision for emergency cesarean section to surgical incision. Neonatal outcomes were categorized as unfavorable (APGAR <7 at 5 min or death) and favorable (alive and APGAR ≥7 at 5 min). We assessed the relationship between each type of delay and neonatal outcomes using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: In our study, 9.1% (40 out of 401) of neonates had an unfavorable outcome, 38.7% (108 out of 279) of neonates' mothers labored for 12-24 h before hospital admission, and 44.7% (159 of 356) of mothers were transferred from health centers that required 30-60 min of travel time to reach the district hospital. Furthermore, 48.1% (178 of 370) of cesarean sections started within 5 h after hospital admission and 85.2% (288 of 338) started more than 30 min after the decision for cesarean section was made. Neonatal outcomes were significantly worse among mothers with more than 90 min of travel time from the health center to the district hospital compared to mothers referred from health centers located on the same compound as the hospital (aOR = 5.12, p = 0.02). Neonates with cesarean deliveries starting more than 30 min after decision for cesarean section had better outcomes than those starting immediately (aOR = 0.32, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Longer travel time between health center and district hospital was associated with poor neonatal outcomes, highlighting a need to decrease barriers to accessing emergency maternal services. However, longer decision to incision interval posed less risk for adverse neonatal outcome. While this could indicate thorough pre-operative interventions including triage and resuscitation, this relationship should be studied prospectively in the future.

Fostering bidirectional trainee-led partnerships through a technology-assisted journal club - The GASOC experience.

Since 2017, the Global Anaesthesia Surgery and Obstetric Collaboration (GASOC) has been hosting journal clubs to promote critical appraisal of global surgery publications. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a transition to an online-only journal club format. Attendees have rated the online GASOC journal clubs highly in terms of relevance for their learning and development, and the ability to engage with discussions. This transition has allowed more trainees in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to register for journal clubs, but barriers have continued to restrict their participation. Feedback submitted by participants has allowed GASOC to identify and address these barriers in order to promote bidirectional partnerships between high-income country and LMIC trainees.

Surveys of post-operative pain management in a teaching hospital in Rwanda - 2013 and 2017.

Background: Postoperative pain management (POPM) appeared to be weak in Rwanda. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare POPM measures in a teaching hospital between 2013 and 2017. Methods: A two-phase observational study in 2013 and 2017. was conducted. Participants were recruited prior to major surgery and followed for two postoperative days. A numerical rating scale (0-10) was administered to all participants in both years, and the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire was administered in 2017. Recruitment, consent, and data collection were performed in participants' preferred language. Results: One hundred adult participants undergoing major general, gynecologic, orthopedic, or urologic surgery were recruited in 2013 and 83 were recruited in 2017. Fourteen percent of participants in 2013 and 46% in 2017 scored their worst pain as severe (>6; P < 0.001). This was despite improved preoperative recognition of patients at high risk for severe postoperative pain (those with chronic pain or preoperative pain); 27% and 0% of these patients were not documented in 2013 and 2017, respectively (P = 0.006). Other measures of improved planning included "any preoperative discussion of POPM" (P < 0.001) and "discussion of POPM options" (P = 0.002). Preemptive analgesia use increased (3% of participants in 2013 and 54% in 2017; P < 0.001). Incidence of participants having no postoperative analgesic at all decreased from 25% in 2013 to 5% in 2017 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Though severe postoperative pain incidence did not improve from 2013 to 2017, POPM improved by a number of measures. These changes may be attributed to pain research conducted there having raised awareness.

Contexte : La prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire (POPM) semblait faible au Rwanda.Objectifs : Comparer les mesures de prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire dans un hôpital d'enseignement entre 2013 et 2017.Méthodes : Étude observationnelle en deux phases réalisée en 2013 et 2017; les participants ont été recrutés avant de subir une chirurgie majeure et ont été suivis pendant deux jours après l'opération. Une échelle de notation numérique (0 à 10) a été administrée à tous les participants les deux années, tandis que le questionnaire International Pain Outcomes a été administré en 2017. Le recrutement, le consentement et toutes les collectes de données se sont déroulés dans la langue préférée par les participants.Résultats : Cent participants adultes ayant subi une chirurgie générale, gynécologique, orthopédique ou urologique majeure ont été recrutés en 2013; 83 en 2017. Quatorze pour cent des participants ont qualifié leur pire douleur de sévère (> 6) en 2013, et 46 % en 2017 (p = 0,001). Cela est survenu malgré l'amélioration de la reconnaissance préopératoire des patients à haut risque de douleur postopératoire sévère (ceux atteints de douleur chronique ou de douleur préopératoire); 27 % de ces patients n'ont pas été documentés en 2013 ; 0 % en 2017, p < 0,006. Parmi les autres mesures de planification améliorée, mentionnons « toute discussion préopératoire de la prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire ¼ (p < 0,001) et « la discussion des options de prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire ¼ (p < 0,002). L'utilisation préventive de l'analgésie a augmenté (3 % des participants en 2013; 54 % en 2017; p < 0,001). L'incidence des participants n'ayant reçu aucun analgésique postopératoire est passée de 25 % en 2013 à 5 % en 2017 (p < 0,001).Conclusions : Bien que l'incidence de la douleur postopératoire sévère ne se soit pas améliorée de 2013 à 2017, la prise en charge de la douleur postopératoire a été améliorée par un certain nombre de mesures. Ces changements peuvent être attribués au fait que la recherche sur la douleur menée là-bas a permis une plus grande sensibilisation.