Mentoring approaches in a safe surgery program in Tanzania: Lessons learned during COVID-19 and recommendations for the future.

Background: COVID-19 has dramatically affected the delivery of health care and technical assistance. This is true in Tanzania, where maternal mortality and surgical infection rates are significantly higher than in high-income countries. This paper describes lessons learned about the optimal application of in-person and virtual mentorship in the Safe Surgery 2020 program to improve the quality of surgical services in Tanzania before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: From January 2018 through December 2020, Safe Surgery 2020 supported 40 health facilities in Tanzania's Lake Zone to improve the quality of surgical care. A blended surgical mentorship model, employing both onsite and virtual mentorship, was central to the program's capacity development approach. With COVID-19, the program pivoted to full virtual mentorship. Through continuous learning and adaptation processes, including a human-centered design workshop, surveys assessing mentors' confidence with different competencies, and focus group discussions with mentors, mentees and safe surgery program staff, the program distilled the optimal use of mentorship models. Results: Developing complex surgical skills, addressing contextual considerations, problem-solving, and building trusting relationships were best suited to in-person mentorship, whereas virtual mentorship was most effective in supporting mentees' quality improvement projects, data use, case discussions, and reinforcing clinical practices. Leading successful virtual learning required enhanced facilitation skills and active engagement of health facility leadership. Conclusions: In-person and virtual mentorship offer distinct benefits and complement each other when combined. Investing more in-person mentorship at the beginning of programs allows for the establishment of trust that is foundational to effective mentorship.

Reducing surgical site infections and mortality among obstetric surgical patients in Tanzania: a pre-evaluation and postevaluation of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Despite ongoing maternal health interventions, maternal deaths in Tanzania remain high. One of the main causes of maternal mortality includes postoperative infections. Surgical site infection (SSI) rates are higher in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), such as Tanzania, compared with high-income countries. We evaluated the impact of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention in Tanzania, hypothesising it would (1) increase adherence to safety practices, such as the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC), (2) reduce SSI rates following caesarean section (CS) and (3) reduce CS-related perioperative mortality rates (POMRs). METHODS: We conducted a pre-cross-sectional/post-cross-sectional study design to evaluate WHO SSC utilisation, SSI rates and CS-related POMR before and 18 months after implementation. Our interventions included training of inter-professional surgical teams, promoting use of the WHO SSC and introducing an infection prevention (IP) bundle for all CS patients. We assessed use of WHO SSC and SSI rates through random sampling of 279 individual CS patient files. We reviewed registers and ward round reports to obtain the number of CS performed and CS-related deaths. We compared proportions of individuals with a characteristic of interest during pre-implementation and post implementation using the two-proportion z-test at p≤0.05 using STATA V.15. RESULTS: The SSC utilisation rate for CS increased from 3.7% (5 out of 136) to 95.1% (136 out of 143) with p<0.001. Likewise, the proportion of women with SSI after CS reduced from 14% during baseline to 1% (p=0.002). The change in SSI rate after the implementation of the safe surgery interventions is statistically significant (p<0.001). The CS-related POMR decreased by 38.5% (p=0.6) after the implementation of safe surgery interventions. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that our intervention led to improved utilisation of the WHO SSC, reduced SSIs and a drop in CS-related POMR. We recommend replication of the interventions in other LMICs.

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.