Point-Of-Care Ultra-Sound (POCUS) for suspected surgical abdominal conditions in rural India-a mixed-method health needs assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence has shown a trend towards rising mortality from surgical abdominal conditions with increasing distance from hospitals in Eastern India. It has been claimed that imaging modalities such as portable ultrasound are ideal for use in rural areas of developing countries for diagnosis and management of a variety of acute abdominal conditions. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the need for increased access to POCUS in rural, hard-to-reach populations within India, and to identify barriers that may exist to increasing this access. METHODS: This mixed-methods study utilized a health needs assessment framework. Quantitative data was extracted from medical records within two outreach camp organisations supporting hard-to-reach populations in Uttarakhand and Jharkhand to provide contextual background statistics. Qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews taken from employees of each outreach camp. A framework analysis was employed to analyse the qualitative data. Both datasets were analysed in parallel. RESULTS: Twelve semi-structured interviews were undertaken, and 3 months of medical records were reviewed. Themes that presented themselves from the data included the use of camps for case-finding of conditions amenable to routine surgery, a need for POCUS to help with this diagnostic process, a perceived high disease burden from renal calculi, and complex cultural and legislative barriers to POCUS specific to this setting. DISCUSSION: POCUS was considered a useful tool in expanding access to surgery for these settings and finding ways of overcoming cultural and legislative barriers to its use should be of high priority. POCUS should be highly portable, robust, easily repairable, and battery operated. For telemedicine to be fully utilised, signal quality will have to be proven to be reliable.

Cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India.

Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique to treat abdominal conditions, has been shown to produce equivalent safety and efficacy with quicker return to normal function compared to open surgery. As such, it is widely accepted as a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for many abdominal conditions. However, access to laparoscopic surgery in rural North-East India is limited, in part due to limited equipment, unreliable supplies of CO2 gas, lack of surgical expertise and a shortage of anaesthetists. We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy as a means to increase provision of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India. A decision tree model was developed to compare costs, evaluated from a patient perspective, and health outcomes, disability adjusted life years (DALYs), associated with gasless laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy or open abdominal surgery in rural North-East India. Results indicate that MIS (performed by conventional or gasless laparoscopy) is less costly and produces better outcomes, fewer DALYs, than open surgery. These results were consistent even when gasless laparoscopy was analysed using least favourable data from the literature. Scaling up provision of MIS through increased access to gasless laparoscopy would reduce the cost burden to patients and increase DALYs averted. Based on a sample of 12 facilities in the North-East region, if scale up was achieved so that all essential surgeries amenable to laparoscopic surgery were performed as such (using conventional or gasless laparoscopy), 64% of DALYS related to these surgeries could be averted, equating to an additional 454.8 DALYs averted in these facilities alone. The results indicate that gasless laparoscopy is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to open surgery for abdominal conditions in rural North-East India and provides a possible bridge to the adoption of full laparoscopic services.

Postgraduate Surgical Training in the UK: the Trainees' Perspective.

Over the last 20 years, surgical training in the United Kingdom (UK) has changed dramatically. There have been considerable efforts towards creating a programme that delivers the highest standard of training while maintaining patient safety. However, the journey to improve the quality of training has faced several hurdles and challenges. Recruitment processes, junior doctor contracts, flexible working hours and equality and diversity have all been under the spotlight in recent times. These issues, alongside the extended surgical team and the increasingly recognised importance of trainee wellbeing, mean that postgraduate surgical training is extremely topical. Alongside this, as technology has evolved, this has been incorporated into all aspects of training, from recruitment to simulated training opportunities and postgraduate examinations. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has brought technology and simulation to the forefront in an attempt to compensate for reduced operative exposure and experience, and has transformed the way that we learn and work. In this article, we reflect on the UK surgical trainee experience and discuss areas of success as well as highlighting potential areas for improvement going forward.

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.

Barriers to training in laparoscopic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Laparoscopic surgery has the potential to improve care in resource-deprived low- and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to analyse the barriers to training in laparoscopic surgery in LMICs. Medline, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science were searched using 'LMIC', 'Laparoscopy' and 'Training'. Two researchers screened results with mutual agreement. Included papers were in English, focused on abdominal laparoscopy and training in LMICs. PRISMA guidelines were followed; 2992 records were screened, and 86 full-text articles reviewed to give 26 key papers. Thematic grouping identified seven key barriers: funding; availability and maintenance of equipment; local access to experienced laparoscopic trainers; stakeholder dynamics; lack of knowledge on effective training curricula; surgical departmental structure and practical opportunities for trainees. In low-resource settings, technological advances may offer low-cost solutions in the successful implementation of laparoscopic training and improve access to surgical care.

Factors influencing use of essential surgical services in North-East India: a cross-sectional study of obstetric and gynaecological surgery.

INTRODUCTION: There continues to be a large gap between need and actual use of surgery in low-resource settings. While policy frequently focuses on expanding the supply of services, demand-side factors are at least as important in determining under utilisation and over utilisation. The aim of this study is to understand how these factors influence the use of selected essential obstetric and gynaecological surgical procedures in the underserved and remote setting of North-East India. METHODS: The study combines and makes use of data from a variety of surveys and routine systems. Descriptive analysis of variations in caesarean section, hysterectomy and sterilisation and then multivariate logit analysis of demand-side and supply-side factors on access to these services is undertaken. RESULTS: Surgical rates vary substantially both across and within North-East India, correlated with service capacity and socioeconomic status. Travel times to surgical facilities are associated with rates of caesarean section and hysterectomy but not sterilisation where services are much more deconcentrated. Travel is less important for surgery in private facilities where capacity is much more dispersed but dominated by the non-poor. The presence of non-doctor medical staff is associated with lower levels of surgical activity. CONCLUSION: In low resource, remote settings policy interventions to improve access to services must recognise that surgical rates in low-resource settings are heavily influenced by demand-side factors. As well as boosting services, mechanisms need to mitigate demand-side barriers particularly distance and influence practice to encourage surgical intervention only where clinically indicated.

Evaluation of Gasless Laparoscopy as a Tool for Minimal Access Surgery in Low-to Middle-Income Countries: A Phase II Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Minimal access surgery is not available to most people in rural areas of low-to middle-income countries. This leads to an increase in morbidity and economic loss to the poor and marginalized. Gasless laparoscopic (GAL) procedures are possible in rural areas because they can be performed under spinal anesthesia. In most cases, it does not require the logistics of providing gases for pneumoperitoneum and general anesthesia. The current study compares GAL with conventional laparoscopic (COL) operations for general surgical procedures. METHODS: A single-center, nonblinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to evaluate noninferiority of GAL vs COL at a teaching hospital in New Delhi, India. Patients were allocated into 3 groups and underwent minimal access surgery (cholecystectomies and appendectomies). The procedures were performed by 2 surgeons choosing randomly between GAL and COL. The data were collected by postgraduates and analyzed by a biostatistician. RESULTS: One hundred patients who met the inclusion criteria were allocated into 2 groups. No significant difference was observed in the mean operating time between the GAL group (52.9 minutes) and the COL group (55 minutes) (p = 0.3). Intraoperative vital signs were better in the GAL group (p < 0.05). The postoperative pain score was slightly higher in the GAL group (p = 0.01); however, it did not require additional analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups. GAL can be considered as noninferior compared with COL and has the potential to be adopted in low-resource settings.