Unplanned readmissions, community socioeconomic factors, and their effects on long-term survival after complex thoracic aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated community socioeconomic factors in patients who had unplanned readmission after undergoing proximal aortic surgery (ascending aorta, aortic root, or arch). METHODS: Unplanned readmissions for any reason within 60 days of the index procedure were reviewed by race, acuity at presentation, and gender. We also evaluated 3 community socioeconomic factors: poverty, household income, and education. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess long-term survival differences by group (race, acuity, and gender). RESULTS: Among 2339 patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery during the 20-year study period and were discharged alive, our team identified 146 (6.2%) unplanned readmissions. Compared with White patients, Black patients lived in areas characterized by more widespread poverty (20.8% vs 11.1%; P = .0003), lower income ($42,776 vs $65,193; P = .0007), and fewer residents with a high school diploma (73.7% vs 90.1%; P < .0001). Compared with patients whose index operation was elective, patients who had urgent or emergency index procedures lived in areas with lower income ($54,425 vs $64,846; P = .01) and fewer residents with a high school diploma (81.1% vs 89.2%; P = .005). Community socioeconomic factors did not differ by gender. Four- and 6-year survival estimates were 63.1% and 63.1% for Black patients versus 89.1% and 83.0% for White patients (P = .0009). No significant differences by acuity or gender were found. CONCLUSIONS: Among readmitted patients, Black patients and patients who had emergency surgery had less favorable community socioeconomic factors and poorer long-term survival. Earlier and more frequent follow-up in these patients should be considered. Developing off-campus clinics and specific postdischarge measures targeting these patients is important.

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.

Achieving global surgical excellence: an evidence-based framework to guide surgical quality improvement programs in low and middle income countries.

Objectives: There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for enhancing global surgical care delivery. We propose a set of recommendations to serve as a framework to guide surgical quality improvement and scale-up initiatives in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Methods: From January-December 2019, we reviewed the available literature and their application toward LMIC settings. The first initiative was the establishment of Best Practices Recommendations intended to summarize best-level evidence around quality improvement processes that have shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in LMICs. The GRADE level of evidence and strength of the recommendation were assigned in accordance with the WHO handbook for guidelines development. The second initiative was the scale-up of principles and practices by establishing international expert consensus on the optimal organization of surgical services in LMICs using a modified Delphi methodology. Results: Recommendations for three topic areas were established: reducing surgical site infections, improving quality of trauma systems, and interventions to reduce maternal and perinatal mortality. 27 studies were included in a quantitative synthesis and meta-analysis for interventions reducing surgical site infections, 27 studies for interventions improving the quality of trauma systems, and 14 studies for interventions reducing maternal and perinatal mortality. Using Delphi methodology, an international expert panel established consensus that district hospitals should place the highest priority on developing surgical services for low complexity, high volume conditions. At the national level, emergency and essential surgical care should be integrated within national Universal Health Coverage frameworks. Conclusions: This project fills a critical cap in the rapidly developing field of global surgery: gathering evidence-based, practical, and cost-effective solutions that will serve as a guide for the efficient planning and allocation of resources necessary to promote quality and safe essential surgical services in LMICs.

International consensus recommendations for the optimal prioritisation and distribution of surgical services in low-income and middle-income countries: a modified Delphi process.

OBJECTIVES: To develop consensus statements regarding the regional-level or district-level distribution of surgical services in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and prioritisation of service scale-up. DESIGN: This work was conducted using a modified Delphi consensus process. Initial statements were developed by the International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Safe Surgery and Anesthesia Working Group of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma and Anesthesia Care (G4 Alliance) and the International Society of Surgery based on previously published literature and clinical expertise. The Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies framework was applied. SETTING: The Working Group convened in Suva, Fiji for a meeting hosted by the Ministry of Health and Medical Services to develop the initial statements. Local experts were invited to participate. The modified Delphi process was conducted through an electronically administered anonymised survey. PARTICIPANTS: Expert LMIC surgeons were nominated for participation in the modified Delphi process based on criteria developed by the Working Group. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The consensus panel voted on statements regarding the organisation of surgical services, principles for scale-up and prioritisation of scale-up. Statements reached consensus if there was ≥80% agreement among participants. RESULTS: Fifty-three nominated experts from 27 LMICs voted on 27 statements in two rounds. Ultimately, 26 statements reached consensus and comprise the current recommendations. The statements covered three major themes: which surgical services should be decentralised or regionalised; how the implementation of these services should be prioritised; and principles to guide LMIC governments and international visiting teams in scaling up safe, accessible and affordable surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent the first step towards the development of international guidelines for the scaling up of surgical services in LMICs. They constitute the best available basis for policymaking, planning and allocation of resources for strengthening surgical systems.

Beyond Policy: Strengthening District Level Access to Surgery Is Critical to Achieving Surgical Equity in Universal Health Coverage Comment on "Improving Access to Surgery Through Surgical Team Mentoring - Policy Lessons From Group Model Building With Local Stakeholders in Malawi".

District level access to surgical care has been identified as the rate limiting step to increasing access to the bottom billion and relies on a complex interplay of patient-related and system-based factors that underlie the provision of quality surgical care at point of care. Surgical mentoring via visiting teams, use of current proprietary technologies to enhance communication, establishment of a national surgical coordinator and multi-stakeholder engagement with creative cost-sharing have all demonstrated promising results. Regardless of strategic implementation frameworks, system-based thinking coupled with implementation science with practical solutions will be necessary to inform stakeholders on the best way forward in their respective geographic field of work charting a path towards surgical equity in universal health coverage (UHC).

Scaling up of safety and quality improvement interventions in perioperative care: a systematic scoping review of implementation strategies and effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 5 billion people lack access to safe surgical care with more deaths due to lack of quality care rather than lack of access. While many proven quality improvement (QI) interventions exist in high-income countries, implementing them in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) faces further challenges. Currently, theory-driven, systematically articulated knowledge of the factors that support successful scale-up of QI in perioperative care in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify all perioperative safety and QI interventions applied at scale in LMICs and evaluate their implementation mechanisms using implementation theory. METHODS: Systematic scoping review of perioperative QI interventions in LMICs from 1960 to 2020. Studies were identified through Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar. Data were extracted in two phases: (1) abstract review to identify the range of QI interventions; (2) studies describing scale-up (three or more sites), had full texts retrieved and analysed for; implementation strategies and scale-up frameworks used; and implementation outcomes reported. RESULTS: We screened 45 128 articles, identifying 137 studies describing perioperative QI interventions across 47 countries. Only 31 of 137 (23%) articles reported scale-up with the most common intervention being the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist. The most common implementation strategies were training and educating stakeholders, developing stakeholder relationships, and using evaluative and iterative strategies. Reporting of implementation mechanisms was generally poor; and although the components of scale-up frameworks were reported, relevant frameworks were rarely referenced. CONCLUSION: Many studies report implementation of QI interventions, but few report successful scale-up from single to multiple-site implementation. Greater use of implementation science methodology may help determine what works, where and why, thereby aiding more widespread scale-up and dissemination of perioperative QI interventions.

Ending Neglected Surgical Diseases (NSDs): Definitions, Strategies, and Goals for the Next Decade.

While there has been overall progress in addressing the lack of access to surgical care worldwide, untreated surgical conditions in developing countries remain an underprioritized issue. Significant backlogs of advanced surgical disease called neglected surgical diseases (NSDs) result from massive disparities in access to quality surgical care. We aim to discuss a framework for a public health rights-based initiative designed to prevent and eliminate the backlog of NSDs in developing countries. We defined NSDs and set forth six criteria that focused on the applicability and practicality of implementing a program designed to eradicate the backlog of six target NSDs from the list of 44 Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition (DCP3) surgical interventions. The human rights-based approach (HRBA) was used to clarify NSDs role within global health. Literature reviews were conducted to ascertain the global disease burden, estimated global backlog, average cost per treatment, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted from the treatment, return on investment, and potential gain and economic impact of the NSDs identified. Six index NSDs were identified, including neglected cleft lips and palate, clubfoot, cataracts, hernias and hydroceles, injuries, and obstetric fistula. Global definitions were proposed as a starting point towards the prevention and elimination of the backlog of NSDs. Defining a subset of neglected surgical conditions that illustrates society's role and responsibility in addressing them provides a framework through the HRBA lens for its eventual eradication.

The Impact of Quality Improvement Interventions in Improving Surgical Infections and Mortality in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality in surgical systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain high compared to high-income countries. Quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure are essential in the effort to improve peri-operative outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country surgical systems was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC, occurred in a surgical setting, and measured the effect of an implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were rates of rates of hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and surgical site infections (SSI). Prospero Registration: CRD42020171542. RESULT: Of 38,273 search results, 31 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, and 28 articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementation of multimodal bundled interventions reduced the incidence of HAI by a relative risk (RR) of 0.39 (95%CI 0.26 to 0.59), the effect of hand hygiene interventions on HAIs showed a non-significant effect of RR of 0.69 (0.46-1.05). The WHO Safe Surgery Checklist reduced mortality by RR 0.68 (0.49 to 0.95) and SSI by RR 0.50 (0.33 to 0.63) and antimicrobial stewardship interventions reduced SSI by RR 0.67 (0.48-0.93). CONCLUSION: There is evidence that a number of quality improvement processes, interventions and structural changes can improve mortality, HAI and SSI outcomes in the peri-operative setting in LMICs.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Processes, Interventions, and Structure in Trauma Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains high compared to high-income countries. Quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure are essential in the effort to decrease trauma mortality. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country trauma systems was conducted from November 1989 to August 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC population according to World Bank Income Classification, occurred in a trauma setting, and measured the effect of implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was trauma mortality. RESULTS: Of 37,575 search results, 30 studies were included from 15 LMICs covering five WHO regions in a qualitative synthesis. Twenty-seven articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementing a pre-hospital trauma system reduced overall trauma mortality by 45% (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.75). Training first responders resulted in an overall decrease in mortality (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.78). In-hospital trauma training with certified courses resulted in a reduction of mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.78). Trauma audits and trauma protocols resulted in varying improvements in trauma mortality. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure can improve mortality in the trauma systems in LMICs.

Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care as a Critical Scale-up Strategy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Comment on "Decentralization and Regionalization of Surgical Care: A Review of Evidence for the Optimal Distribution of Surgical Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries".

As global attention to improve the quality, safety and access to surgical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) increases, the need for evidence-based strategies to reliably scale-up the quality and quantity of surgical services becomes ever more pertinent. Iversen et al discuss the optimal distribution of surgical services, whether through decentralization or regionalization, and propose a strategy that utilizes the dimensions of acuity, complexity and prevalence of surgical conditions to inform national priorities. Proposed expansion of this strategy to encompass levels of scale-up prioritization is discussed in this commentary. The decentralization of emergency obstetric services in LMICs shows promising results and should be further explored. The dearth of evidence of regionalization in LMICs, on the other hand, limits extrapolation of lessons learned. Nevertheless, principles from the successful regionalization of certain services such as trauma care in high-income countries (HICs) can be adapted to LMIC settings and can provide the backbone for innovation in service delivery and safety.

Global Surgery - Redirecting Strategies for a Global Research Agenda Comment on "Global Surgery - Informing National Strategies for Scaling Up Surgery in Sub-Saharan Africa".

More than three years have passed since the publication of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery and its recommendations on scaling up surgery in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). An important gap, the voice of the districts as well as lack of contextualized research, has been noted in its support of national surgical plans that run the risk of being at best, aspirational. Moreover, a 'one-size-fits-all approach' may not adequately address country-specific challenges on the ground. There is a need to redirect attention, effort, and funding in creating a global mechanism to gather baseline country information documenting every single district level government health facility's ability and readiness to provide safe surgical, obstetric, trauma, and anesthesia care using the World Health Organization (WHO) Service Availability and Readiness Assessment (SARA) tool to aid in directing country-specific efforts in surgical systems strengthening and ensuring that a basic package of essential surgical and anesthesia services is made available to each citizen with adequate financial protection by 2030. This global mechanism will enable benchmarking, accountability, and streamlining of the work of the global surgical community to achieve true progress in scaling up surgery not only in SSA, but for the rest of the developing world.

Development of a Unifying Target and Consensus Indicators for Global Surgical Systems Strengthening: Proposed by the Global Alliance for Surgery, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care (The G4 Alliance).

After decades on the margins of primary health care, surgical and anaesthesia care is gaining increasing priority within the global development arena. The 2015 publications of the Disease Control Priorities third edition on Essential Surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery created a compelling evidenced-based argument for the fundamental role of surgery and anaesthesia within cost-effective health systems strengthening global strategy. The launch of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care in 2015 has further coordinated efforts to build priority for surgical care and anaesthesia. These combined efforts culminated in the approval of a World Health Assembly resolution recognizing the role of surgical care and anaesthesia as part of universal health coverage. Momentum gained from these milestones highlights the need to identify consensus goals, targets and indicators to guide policy implementation and track progress at the national level. Through an open consultative process that incorporated input from stakeholders from around the globe, a global target calling for safe surgical and anaesthesia care for 80% of the world by 2030 was proposed. In order to achieve this target, we also propose 15 consensus indicators that build on existing surgical systems metrics and expand the ability to prioritize surgical systems strengthening around the world.

Implementation of the World Health Organization Trauma Care Checklist Program in 11 Centers Across Multiple Economic Strata: Effect on Care Process Measures.

BACKGROUND: Trauma contributes more than ten percent of the global burden of disease. Initial assessment and resuscitation of trauma patients often requires rapid diagnosis and management of multiple concurrent complex conditions, and errors are common. We investigated whether implementing a trauma care checklist would improve care for injured patients in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. METHODS: From 2010 to 2012, the impact of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trauma Care Checklist program was assessed in 11 hospitals using a stepped wedge pre- and post-intervention comparison with randomly assigned intervention start dates. Study sites represented nine countries with diverse economic and geographic contexts. Primary end points were adherence to process of care measures; secondary data on morbidity and mortality were also collected. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in measures pre- versus post-intervention, accounting for patient age, gender, injury severity, and center-specific variability. RESULTS: Data were collected on 1641 patients before and 1781 after program implementation. Patient age (mean 34 ± 18 vs. 34 ± 18), sex (21 vs. 22 % female), and the proportion of patients with injury severity scores (ISS) ≥ 25 (10 vs. 10 %) were similar before and after checklist implementation (p > 0.05). Improvement was found for 18 of 19 process measures, including greater odds of having abdominal examination (OR 3.26), chest auscultation (OR 2.68), and distal pulse examination (OR 2.33) (all p < 0.05). These changes were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the WHO Trauma Care Checklist was associated with substantial improvements in patient care process measures among a cohort of patients in diverse settings.