Kevin J Blair1, Lorenzo Paladino2, Pamela L Shaw3, Michael B Shapiro4, Benedict C Nwomeh5, Mamta Swaroop4. 1. Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: kevin.james.blair@gmail.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York. 3. Galter Health Sciences Library, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Pediatric Surgery, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical and trauma capacity assessments help guide resource allocation and plan interventions to improve care for the injured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To forge expert consensus on conducting these assessments, we undertook a systematic review of studies using five tools: (1) World Health Organization's (WHO) Guidelines for Essential Trauma Care, (2) WHO's Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care, (3) Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies tool, (4) Harvard Humanitarian Initiative tool, and (5) Emergency and Critical Care tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications describing utilization of survey instruments to assess surgical or trauma capacity in LMICs were reviewed. Included articles underwent thematic analysis to develop recommendations. A modified Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus. Experts rated recommendations on a Likert-type scale via online survey. Consensus was defined by Cronbach's α ≥ 0.80. Recommendations achieving agreement by ≥80% of experts were included. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-eight publications were identified and 41 included, describing evaluation of 1170 facilities across 36 LMICs. Nine recommendations were agreed upon by expert consensus: (1) inclusion of district hospitals, (2) inclusion of highest level public hospital, (3) inclusion of private facilities, (4) facility visits for on-site completion, (5) direct inspections, (6) checking surgical logs, (7) adaptation of survey instrument, (8) repeat assessments, and (9) need for increased collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Expert recommendations developed in this review describe methodology to be employed when conducting assessments of surgical and trauma capacity in LMICs. Consensus has yet to be achieved for tool selection.
BACKGROUND: Surgical and trauma capacity assessments help guide resource allocation and plan interventions to improve care for the injured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To forge expert consensus on conducting these assessments, we undertook a systematic review of studies using five tools: (1) World Health Organization's (WHO) Guidelines for Essential Trauma Care, (2) WHO's Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care, (3) Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies tool, (4) Harvard Humanitarian Initiative tool, and (5) Emergency and Critical Care tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications describing utilization of survey instruments to assess surgical or trauma capacity in LMICs were reviewed. Included articles underwent thematic analysis to develop recommendations. A modified Delphi method was used to establish expert consensus. Experts rated recommendations on a Likert-type scale via online survey. Consensus was defined by Cronbach's α ≥ 0.80. Recommendations achieving agreement by ≥80% of experts were included. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-eight publications were identified and 41 included, describing evaluation of 1170 facilities across 36 LMICs. Nine recommendations were agreed upon by expert consensus: (1) inclusion of district hospitals, (2) inclusion of highest level public hospital, (3) inclusion of private facilities, (4) facility visits for on-site completion, (5) direct inspections, (6) checking surgical logs, (7) adaptation of survey instrument, (8) repeat assessments, and (9) need for increased collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Expert recommendations developed in this review describe methodology to be employed when conducting assessments of surgical and trauma capacity in LMICs. Consensus has yet to be achieved for tool selection.
Authors: Sabrina Juran; Magdalena Gruendl; Isobel H Marks; P Niclas Broer; Jose Miguel Guzman; Justine Davies; Mark Shrime; Walter Johnson; Hampus Holmer; Gregory Peck; Emmanuel Makasa; Lars Hagander; Stephanie J Klug; John G Meara; Adrian W Gelb; David Ljungman Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Robert A Tessler; Kathryn M Stadeli; Witaya Chadbunchachai; Adam Gyedu; Lacey Lagrone; Teri Reynolds; Andres Rubiano; Charles N Mock Journal: Injury Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: John Whitaker; Nollaig O'Donohoe; Max Denning; Dan Poenaru; Elena Guadagno; Andrew J M Leather; Justine I Davies Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2021-05
Authors: Elissa K Butler; Adam Gyedu; Barclay T Stewart; Robert Quansah; Peter Donkor; Charles N Mock Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: S Ariane Christie; Benedict C Nwomeh; Sanjay Krishnaswami; George P Yang; Ai-Xuan L Holterman; Anthony Charles; Sudha Jayaraman; Randeep S Jawa; Jennifer Rickard; Mamta Swaroop; Sifri C Ziad; Georges Alain Etoundi Mballa; Martin Ekeke Monono; Alain Chichom Mefire; Catherine Juillard Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 3.352