Scaling up Surgical Capacity in Kenya: The Kenya Hospital Assessment Tool (K-HAT).

INTRODUCTION: Although substantial progress has been achieved to bring surgical care to the forefront of global health discussions, a number of low-and middle-income countries are still in the process of developing a National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plan (NSOAP). This paper describes the initial step toward the development of the NSOAP through the creation of the Kenya National Hospital Assessment Tool (K-HAT). METHODS: A study protocol was developed by a multisectoral collaborative group that represented the pillars of surgical capacity development in Kenya. The K-HAT was adapted from two World Health Organization (WHO) tools: the Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool and the Situational Analysis Tool. The survey tool was deployed on Open Data Kit, an open-source electronic encrypted database. This new locally adapted tool was pilot tested in three hospitals in Kenya and subsequently deployed in Level 4 facilities. RESULTS: Eighty-nine questions representing over 800 data points divided into six WHO Health Systems Strengthening sections comprised the K-HAT which was deployed to over 95% of Level 4 hospitals in Kenya. When compared to the WHO Service Availability and Readiness Assessment tool, the K-HAT collected more detailed information. The pilot test team reported that K-HAT was easy to administer, easily understood by the respondents, and that it took approximately 1 hour to collect data from each facility. CONCLUSIONS: The K-HAT collected comprehensive information that can be used to develop Kenya's NSOAP.

Essential surgery: the way forward.

INTRODUCTION: Very little surgical care is performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). An estimated two billion people in the world have no access to essential surgical care, and non-surgeons perform much of the surgery in remote and rural areas. Surgical care is as yet not recognized as an integral aspect of primary health care despite its self-demonstrated cost-effectiveness. We aimed to define the parameters of a public health approach to provide surgical care to areas in most need. METHODS: Consensus meetings were held, field experience was collected via targeted interviews, and a literature review on the current state of essential surgical care provision in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) was conducted. Comparisons were made across international recommendations for essential surgical interventions and a consensus-driven list was drawn up according to their relative simplicity, resource requirement, and capacity to provide the highest impact in terms of averted mortality or disability. RESULTS: Essential Surgery consists of basic, low-cost surgical interventions, which save lives and prevent life-long disability or life-threatening complications and may be offered in any district hospital. Fifteen essential surgical interventions were deduced from various recommendations from international surgical bodies. Training in the realm of Essential Surgery is narrow and strict enough to be possible for non-physician clinicians (NPCs). This cadre is already active in many SSA countries in providing the bulk of surgical care. CONCLUSION: A basic package of essential surgical care interventions is imperative to provide structure for scaling up training and building essential health services in remote and rural areas of LMICs. NPCs, a health cadre predominant in SSA, require training, mentoring, and monitoring. The cost of such training is vastly more efficient than the expensive training of a few polyvalent or specialist surgeons, who will not be sufficient in numbers within the next few generations. Moreover, these practitioners are used to working in the districts and are much less prone to gravitate elsewhere. The use of these NPCs performing "Essential Surgery" is a feasible route to deal with the almost total lack of primary surgical care in LMICs.

Surgical and anaesthetic capacity of hospitals in Malawi: key insights.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is increasingly recognized as an important driver for health systems strengthening, especially in developing countries. To facilitate quality improvement initiatives, baseline knowledge of capacity for surgical, anaesthetic, emergency and obstetric care is critical. In partnership with the Malawi Ministry of Health, we quantified government hospitals' surgical capacity through workforce, infrastructure and health service delivery components. METHODS: From November 2012 to January 2013, we surveyed district and mission hospital administrators and clinical staff onsite using a modified version of the Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment and Supplies (PIPES) tool from Surgeons OverSeas. We calculated percentage of facilities demonstrating adequacy of the assessed components, surgical case rates, operating theatre density and surgical workforce density. RESULTS: Twenty-seven government hospitals were surveyed (90% of the district hospitals, all central hospitals). Of the surgical workforce surveyed (n = 370), 92.7% were non-surgeons and 77% were clinical officers (COs). Of the 109 anaesthesia providers, 95.4% were non-physician anaesthetists (anaesthesia COs or ACOs). Non-surgeons and ACOs were the only providers of surgical services and anaesthetic services in 85% and 88.9% of hospitals, respectively. No specialists served the district hospitals. All of the hospitals experienced periods without external electricity. Most did not always have a functioning generator (78.3% district, 25% central) or running water (82.6%, 50%). None of the district hospitals had an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Cricothyroidotomy, bowel resection and cholecystectomy were not done in over two-thirds of hospitals. Every hospital provided general anaesthesia but some did not always have a functioning anaesthesia machine (52.2%, 50%). Surgical rate, operating theatre density and surgical workforce density per 100 000 population was 289.48-747.38 procedures, 0.98 and 5.41 and 3.68 surgical providers, respectively. CONCLUSION: COs form the backbone of Malawi's surgical and anaesthetic workforce and should be supported with improvements in infrastructure as well as training and mentorship by specialist surgeons and anaesthetists.

Value innovation: an important aspect of global surgical care.

INTRODUCTION: Limited resources in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) drive tremendous innovation in medicine, as well as in other fields. It is not often recognized that several important surgical tools and methods, widely used in high-income countries, have their origins in LMICs. Surgical care around the world stands much to gain from these innovations. In this paper, we provide a short review of some of these successful innovations and their origins that have had an important impact in healthcare delivery worldwide. REVIEW: Examples of LMIC innovations that have been adapted in high-income countries include the Bogotá bag for temporary abdominal wound closure, the orthopaedic external fixator for complex fractures, a hydrocephalus fluid valve for normal pressure hydrocephalus, and intra-ocular lens and manual small incision cataract surgery. LMIC innovations that have had tremendous potential global impact include mosquito net mesh for inguinal hernia repair, and a flutter valve for intercostal drainage of pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: Surgical innovations from LMICs have been shown to have comparable outcomes at a fraction of the cost of tools used in high-income countries. These innovations have the potential to revolutionize global surgical care. Advocates should actively seek out these innovations, campaign for the financial gains from these innovations to benefit their originators and their countries, and find ways to develop and distribute them locally as well as globally.

Cost-effectiveness of surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in provision of essential surgical care as part of public health policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Relatively simple interventions have been shown to prevent death and disability. We reviewed the published literature to examine the cost-effectiveness of simple surgical interventions which could be made available at any district hospital, and compared these to standard public health interventions. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched using single and combinations of the search terms "disability adjusted life year" (DALY), "quality adjusted life year," "cost-effectiveness," and "surgery." Articles were included if they detailed the cost-effectiveness of a surgical intervention of relevance to a LMIC, which could be made available at any district hospital. Suitable articles with both cost and effectiveness data were identified and, where possible, data were extrapolated to enable comparison across studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met our inclusion criteria, representing 64 LMIC over 16 years of study. Interventions that were found to be cost-effective included cataract surgery (cost/DALY averted range US$5.06-$106.00), elective inguinal hernia repair (cost/DALY averted range US$12.88-$78.18), male circumcision (cost/DALY averted range US$7.38-$319.29), emergency cesarean section (cost/DALY averted range US$18-$3,462.00), and cleft lip and palate repair (cost/DALY averted range US$15.44-$96.04). A small district hospital with basic surgical services was also found to be highly cost-effective (cost/DALY averted 1 US$0.93), as were larger hospitals offering emergency and trauma surgery (cost/DALY averted US$32.78-$223.00). This compares favorably with other standard public health interventions, such as oral rehydration therapy (US$1,062.00), vitamin A supplementation (US$6.00-$12.00), breast feeding promotion (US$930.00), and highly active anti-retroviral therapy for HIV (US$922.00). CONCLUSIONS: Simple surgical interventions that are life-saving and disability-preventing should be considered as part of public health policy in LMIC. We recommend an investment in surgical care and its integration with other public health measures at the district hospital level, rather than investment in single disease strategies.

Prehospital trauma systems reduce mortality in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of trauma deaths in the developing world occur outside of the hospital. In the mid-1990s, preliminary studies of prehospital trauma systems showed improvements in mortality. However, no empirical data are available to assess the overall benefit of these systems. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of prehospital trauma systems in developing countries. METHODS: We conducted multiple database and bibliography searches (from inception until December 2010) to identify articles assessing the effectiveness of prehospital trauma systems in developing countries. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were physiologic severity score, Injury Severity Score, and prehospital time. We calculated relative risks (95% confidence intervals [CIs]), performed a sensitivity analysis, and pooled estimates using a fixed effects method. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Eight studies representing seven countries (n = 5,607) were included in the meta-analysis. Our pooled estimates show a 25% decreased risk of dying from trauma in areas that have prehospital trauma systems (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.85), with no significant heterogeneity (χ = 3.71, p = 0.72). Rural settings showed slightly enhanced treatment effect compared with urban settings (RR, rural 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86 vs. urban 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94). In-field response time was reduced in both rural (without an ambulance system, 66 minutes, 95% CI: 24-108) and urban (with an ambulance system, 6 minutes, 95% CI: 5.47 to 6.53, p < 0.0005) settings. CONCLUSION: Prehospital trauma systems in developing countries, particularly middle-income countries, reduce mortality. These data should inform and encourage developing countries to adopt prehospital trauma systems at the policy level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Meta-analysis, level III+.