Evaluation of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosives (CBRNE) Knowledge Change and Skills Confidence Among Frontline-Line Providers During the Russia-Ukraine War.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in knowledge and skill confidence after implementation of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) training course during the Russia-Ukraine War. METHODS: Pre/post-test study in the Ukrainian cities of Kyiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia, and Odesa. Fifteen CBRNE courses were conducted over a 3-mo period, August to October 2022. Change in knowledge and skills confidence were evaluated with pre/post-course written exams and practical skill assessments that were observed during the training exercises. Changes were analyzed based on nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank testing. Pre/post self-efficacy surveys were analyzed with McNemar's test for paired data. Course evaluations were conducted with standardized questions which assessed instruction quality, teaching relevance, knowledge gained, and post-course skills confidence. RESULTS: A total of 523 participants registered and completed 1 of the 15 courses. Overall mean pre-course test score: 57.8% (SD 20.7%); mean post-course test score: 81.4% (SD 11.3%); participants with increasing test scores: 90.7%; mean difference in score (95% confidence interval) 23.6% (21.2%-25.9%), P < 0.0001. Pre/post self-efficacy surveys (4-point Likert scale) noted participants recognized signs and symptoms of a CBRNE incident, and necessary skills to manage CBRNE exposures, P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of this CBRNE course for front-line providers in Ukraine was successful. To our knowledge, it was the first implementation of a field course during the current Russian-Ukraine war. Future research should evaluate knowledge retention and impact of our innovative Train-the-Trainer model. Further iterations should emphasize expanding the quantity of training equipment and practical skill sessions.

Implementing surgical mentorship in a resource-constrained context: a mixed methods assessment of the experiences of mentees, mentors, and leaders, and lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: A well-qualified workforce is critical to effective functioning of health systems and populations; however, skill gaps present a challenge in low-resource settings. While an emerging body of evidence suggests that mentorship can improve quality, access, and systems in African health settings by building the capacity of health providers, less is known about its implementation in surgery. We studied a novel surgical mentorship intervention as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) in five rural Ethiopian facilities to understand factors affecting implementation of surgical mentorship in resource-constrained settings. METHODS: We designed a convergent mixed-methods study to understand the experiences of mentees, mentors, hospital leaders, and external stakeholders with the mentorship intervention. Quantitative data was collected through a survey (n = 25) and qualitative data through in-depth interviews (n = 26) in 2018 to gather information on (1) intervention characteristics including areas of mentorship, mentee-mentor relationships, and mentor characteristics, (2) organizational context including facilitators and barriers to implementation, (3) perceived impact, and (4) respondent characteristics. We analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data using frequency analysis and the constant comparison method, respectively; we integrated findings to identify themes. RESULTS: All mentees (100%) experienced the intervention as positive. Participants perceived impact as: safer and more frequent surgical procedures, collegial bonds between mentees and mentors, empowerment among mentees, and a culture of continuous learning. Over 70% of all mentees reported their confidence and job satisfaction increased. Supportive intervention characteristics included a systems focus, psychologically safe mentee-mentor relationships, and mentor characteristics including generosity with time and knowledge, understanding of local context, and interpersonal skills. Supportive organizational context included a receptive implementation climate. Intervention challenges included insufficient clinical training, inadequate mentor support, and inadequate dose. Organizational context challenges included resource constraints and a lack of common understanding of the intervention. CONCLUSION: We offer lessons for intervention designers, policy makers, and practitioners about optimizing surgical mentorship interventions in resource-constrained settings. We attribute the intervention's success to its holistic approach, a receptive climate, and effective mentee-mentor relationships. These qualities, along with policy support and adapting the intervention through user feedback are important for successful implementation.

A multimodal mentorship intervention to improve surgical quality in Tanzania's Lake Zone: a convergent, mixed methods assessment.

BACKGROUND: Safe, high-quality surgical care in many African countries is a critical need. Challenges include availability of surgical providers, improving quality of care, and building workforce capacity. Despite growing evidence that mentoring is effective in African healthcare settings, less is known about its role in surgery. We examined a multimodal approach to mentorship as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) to improve surgical quality. Our goal was to distill lessons for policy makers, intervention designers, and practitioners on key elements of a successful surgical mentorship program. METHODS: We used a convergent, mixed-methods design to examine the experiences of mentees, mentors, and facility leaders with mentorship at 10 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone. A multidisciplinary team of mentors worked with surgical providers over 17 months using in-person mentorship, telementoring, and WhatsApp. We conducted surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups to capture data in four categories: (1) satisfaction with mentorship; (2) perceived impact; (3) elements of a successful mentoring program; and (4) challenges to implementing mentorship. We analyzed quantitative data using frequency analysis and qualitative data using the constant comparison method. Recurrent and unifying concepts were identified through merging the qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: Overall, 96% of mentees experienced the intervention as positive, 88% were satisfied, and 100% supported continuing the intervention in the future. Mentees, mentors, and facility leaders perceived improvements in surgical practice, the surgical ecosystem, and in reducing postsurgical infections. Several themes related to the intervention's success emerged: (1) the intervention's design, including its multimodality, side-by-side mentorship, and standardization of practices; (2) the mentee-mentor relationship, including a friendly, safe, non-hierarchical, team relationship, as well as mentors' understanding of the local context; and (3) mentorship characteristics, including non-judgmental feedback, experience, and accessibility. Challenges included resistance to change, shortage of providers, mentorship dose, and logistics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a multimodal mentorship approach is promising in building the capacity of surgical providers. By distilling the experiences of the mentees, mentors, and facility leaders, our lessons provide a foundation for future efforts to establish effective surgical mentorship programs that build provider capacity and ultimately improve surgical quality.

Outcomes of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention in Tanzania's Lake Zone: a prospective, longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based strategies for improving surgical quality and patient outcomes in low-resource settings are a priority. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) on (1) adherence to safety practices, teamwork and communication, and documentation in patient files, and (2) incidence of maternal sepsis, postoperative sepsis, and surgical site infection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in 10 intervention and 10 control facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone, across a 3-month pre-intervention period in 2018 and 3-month post-intervention period in 2019. SS2020 is a multicomponent intervention to support four surgical quality areas: (i) leadership and teamwork, (ii) evidence-based surgery, anesthesia and equipment sterilization practices, (iii) data completeness and (iv) infrastructure. Surgical team members received training and mentorship, and each facility received up to a $10 000 infrastructure grant. Inpatients undergoing major surgery and postpartum women were followed during their stay up to 30 days. We assessed adherence to 14 safety and teamwork and communication measures through direct observation in the operating room. We identified maternal sepsis (vaginal or cesarean delivery), postoperative sepsis and SSIs prospectively through daily surveillance and assessed medical record completeness retrospectively through chart review. We compared changes in surgical quality outcomes between intervention and control facilities using difference-in-differences analyses to determine areas of impact. RESULTS: Safety practices improved significantly by an additional 20.5% (95% confidence interval (CI), 7.2-33.7%; P = 0.003) and teamwork and communication conversations by 33.3% (95% CI, 5.7-60.8%; P = 0.02) in intervention facilities compared to control facilities. Maternal sepsis rates reduced significantly by 1% (95% CI, 0.1-1.9%; P = 0.02). Documentation completeness improved by 41.8% (95% CI, 27.4-56.1%; P < 0.001) for sepsis and 22.3% (95% CI, 4.7-39.8%; P = 0.01) for SSIs. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate the benefit of the SS2020 approach. Improvement was observed in adherence to safety practices, teamwork and communication, and data quality, and there was a reduction in maternal sepsis rates. Our results support the emerging evidence that improving surgical quality in a low-resource setting requires a focus on the surgical system and culture. Investigation in diverse contexts is necessary to confirm and generalize our results and to understand how to adapt the intervention for different settings. Further work is also necessary to assess the long-term effect and sustainability of such interventions.

Improving surgical quality in low-income and middle-income countries: why do some health facilities perform better than others?

BACKGROUND: Evidence on heterogeneity in outcomes of surgical quality interventions in low-income and middle-income countries is limited. We explored factors driving performance in the Safe Surgery 2020 intervention in Tanzania's Lake Zone to distil implementation lessons for low-resource settings. METHODS: We identified higher (n=3) and lower (n=3) performers from quantitative data on improvement from 14 safety and teamwork and communication indicators at 0 and 12 months from 10 intervention facilities, using a positive deviance framework. From 72 key informant interviews with surgical providers across facilities at 1, 6 and 12 months, we used a grounded theory approach to identify practices of higher and lower performers. RESULTS: Performance experiences of higher and lower performers differed on the following themes: (1) preintervention context, (2) engagement with Safe Surgery 2020 interventions, (3) teamwork and communication orientation, (4) collective learning orientation, (5) role of leadership, and (6) perceived impact of Safe Surgery 2020 and beyond. Higher performers had a culture of teamwork which helped them capitalise on Safe Surgery 2020 to improve surgical ecosystems holistically on safety practices, teamwork and communication. Lower performers prioritised overhauling safety practices and began considering organisational cultural changes much later. Thus, while also improving, lower performers prioritised different goals and trailed higher performers on the change continuum. CONCLUSION: Future interventions should be tailored to facility context and invest in strengthening teamwork, communication and collective learning and facilitate leadership engagement to build a receptive climate for successful implementation of safe surgery interventions.

In-Hospital Postoperative Mortality Rates for Selected Procedures in Tanzania's Lake Zone.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality rate is one of six surgical indicators identified by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery for monitoring access to high-quality surgical care. The primary aim of this study was to measure the postoperative mortality rate in Tanzania's Lake Zone to provide a baseline for surgical strengthening efforts. The secondary aim was to measure the effect of Safe Surgery 2020, a multi-component intervention to improve surgical quality, on postoperative mortality after 10 months. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on postoperative mortality from 20 health centers, district hospitals, and regional hospitals in Tanzania's Lake Zone over two time periods: pre-intervention (February to April 2018) and post-intervention (March to May 2019). We analyzed postoperative mortality rates by procedure type. We used logistic regression to determine the impact of Safe Surgery 2020 on postoperative mortality. RESULTS: The overall average in-hospital non-obstetric postoperative mortality rate for all surgery procedures was 2.62%. The postoperative mortality rates for laparotomy were 3.92% and for cesarean delivery was 0.24%. Logistic regression demonstrated no difference in the postoperative mortality rate after the Safe Surgery 2020 intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our results inform national surgical planning in Tanzania by providing a sub-national baseline estimate of postoperative mortality rates for multiple surgical procedures and serve as a basis from which to measure the impact of future surgical quality interventions. Our study showed no improvement in postoperative mortality after implementation of Safe Surgery 2020, possibly due to low power to detect change.