Surgical Burden of Disease in Women.

Globally, an inequitable surgical burden exists. Greater than 90% of people in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack access to safe, affordable surgical care. Also, patients undergoing surgery in LMICs suffer much higher rates of perioperative complications and death. In many LMICs, cesarean section is both underused and overused, and frequently performed unsafely. Obstetric fistula and women's cancers contribute to the surgical burden of women in LMICs. Surgical team nontechnical skills (eg, teamwork and communication) and use of tools such as the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Enhanced Recovery after Surgery program have the potential to greatly improve surgical outcomes.

Perioperative provider safety in the pandemic: Development, implementation and evaluation of an adjunct COVID-19 Surgical Patient Checklist.

The COVID-19 pandemic has strained surgical systems worldwide and placed healthcare providers at risk in their workplace. To protect surgical care providers caring for patients with COVID-19, in May 2020 we developed a COVID-19 Surgical Patient Checklist (C19 SPC), including online training materials, to accompany the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist. In October 2020, an online survey was conducted via partner and social media networks to understand perioperative clinicians' intraoperative practice and perceptions of safety while caring for COVID-19 positive patients and gain feedback on the utility of C19 SPC. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise responses by World Bank income classification. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe respondents' perceptions of C19 SPC and recommended modifications. Respondents included 539 perioperative clinicians from 63 countries. One-third of respondents reported feeling unsafe in their workplace due to COVID-19 with significantly higher proportions in low (39.8%) and lower-middle (33.9%) than higher income countries (15.6%). The most cited concern was the risk of COVID-19 transmission to self, colleagues and family. A large proportion of respondents (65.3%) reported that they had not used C19 SPC, yet 83.8% of these respondents felt it would be useful. Of those who reported that they had used C19 SPC, 62.0% stated feeling safer in the workplace because of its use. Based on survey results, modifications were incorporated into a subsequent version. Our survey findings suggest that perioperative clinicians report feeling unsafe at work during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, adjunct tools such as the C19 SPC can help to improve perceived safety.

Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees. CONCLUSIONS: To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.

Development and content validation of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool: A quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Recent efforts to increase access to safe and high-quality surgical care in low- and middle-income countries have proven successful. However, multiple facilities implementing the same safety and quality improvement interventions may not all achieve successful outcomes. This heterogeneity could be explained, in part, by pre-intervention organizational characteristics and lack of readiness of surgical facilities. In this study, we describe the process of developing and content validating the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The new tool was developed in two stages. First, qualitative results from a Safe Surgery 2020 intervention were combined with findings from a literature review of organizational readiness and change. Second, through iterative discussions and expert review, the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool was content validated. RESULTS: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool includes 14 domains and 56 items measuring the readiness of surgical facilities in low- and middle-income countries to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. This multi-dimensional and multi-level tool offers insights into facility members' beliefs and attitudes at the individual, team, and facility levels. A panel review affirmed the content validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool. CONCLUSION: The Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool is a theory- and evidence-based tool that can be used by change agents and facility leaders in low- and middle-income countries to assess the baseline readiness of surgical facilities to implement surgical safety and quality improvement interventions. Next steps include assessing the reliability and validity of the Safe Surgery Organizational Readiness Tool, likely resulting in refinements.

High-risk human papillomavirus prevalence in self-collected cervicovaginal specimens from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative women and women living with HIV living in Botswana.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) is poorly described overall and in women living with HIV (WLWH) and HIV-negative women living in Botswana, a high HIV and cervical cancer-burden country. We conducted a pilot study of self-collection and high-risk HPV testing for cervical screening, from which data on HPV prevalence was available. METHODS: From five health facilities in the Kweneng East District, 1,022 women aged 30-49 years were enrolled to self-collect their cervicovaginal specimen for hrHPV testing by the Xpert HPV Test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Crude and age group-adjusted hrHPV prevalence by HIV status were calculated, and the relationship of hrHPV risk groups HPV16>HPV18/45>other hrHPV types) to the presence and severity of visible lesions. RESULTS: Of the 1,022 women enrolled, 1,019 (99.7%), 570 WLWH and 449 HIV-negative women, had hrHPV testing results. Crude hrHPV prevalences were 25.2% (95%CI = 21.2-29.4%) for HIV-negative women and 40.4% (95%CI = 36.3-44.5%) for WLWH. Age group-adjusted hrHPV prevalences were 23.7% (95%CI = 19.9-27.9%) for HIV-negative women and 41.3% (95%CI = 37.2-45.4%) for WLWH. Age group-adjusted prevalences of HPV16 (p<0.001), HPV18/45 (p<0.001), HPV31/33/35/52/58 (p<0.001), and HPV39/56/66/68 (p = 0.011) were greater among WLWH than HIV-negative women. Riskier hrHPV groups were more likely to have visible abnormalities (ptrend = 0.004) and visible abnormalities not eligible for cryotherapy (ptrend = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: hrHPV infection was common among all women in the study living in Botswana, to a greater extent in WLWH than their HIV-negative counterparts. Strategies to triage hrHPV-positive women will be needed to avoid over-treating many women with benign hrHPV infections.