IntroductionRoutine health service provision decreased during the 2014–2016 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in Sierra Leone, while caesarean section (CS) rates at public hospitals did not. It is unknown what made staff provide CS despite the risks of contracting EVD. This study explores Sierra Leonean health worker perspectives of why they continued to provide CS.MethodsThis qualitative study documents the experiences of 15 CS providers who worked during the EVD outbreak. We interviewed surgical and non-surgical CS providers who worked at public hospitals that either increased or decreased CS volumes during the outbreak. Hospitals in all four administrative areas of Sierra Leone were included. Semistructured interviews averaged 97 min and healthcare experience 21 years. Transcripts were analysed by modified framework analysis in the NVivo V.11.4.1 software.ResultsWe identified two themes that may explain why providers performed CS despite EVD risks: (1) clinical adaptability and (2) overcoming the moral dilemmas. CS providers reported being overworked and exposed to infection hazards. However, they developed clinical workarounds to the lack of surgical materials, protective equipment and standard operating procedures until the broader international response introduced formal personal protective equipment and infection prevention and control practices. CS providers reported that dutifulness and sense of responsibility for one’s community increased during EVD, which helped them justify taking the risk of being infected. Although most surgical activities were reduced to minimise staff exposure to EVD, staff at public hospitals tended to prioritise performing CS surgery for women with acute obstetric complications.ConclusionThis study found that CS surgery during EVD in Sierra Leone may be explained by remarkable decisions by individual CS providers at public hospitals. They adapted practically to material limitations exacerbated by the outbreak and overcame the moral dilemmas of performing CS despite the risk of being infected with EVD.
IntroductionOsteoarthritis of the knee has been identified as the most common disability in Pakistan. Total knee replacement (TKR) surgery is the curative treatment for advanced osteoarthritis of the knee; however, cost remains one of the barriers to effective and timely service delivery.ObjectiveWe conducted a time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) analysis of TKR to identify major cost drivers and areas for process improvement.Methods and analysisWe performed a prospective TDABC analysis of patients who underwent bilateral TKR at The Indus Hospital (TIH) during a 14-month period from October 2015 to December 2016. Detailed process maps were developed for each phase of the care cycle. Time durations and costs were allocated to each resource utilised and aggregated across the care cycle, including personnel, direct and indirect costs.ResultsWe identified seven care phases for a complete TKR care cycle and created their detailed process maps. Major time contributors were ward stay and discharge (20 160 min), TKR surgery (563 min) and surgical admission (333 min). Overall, 92.10% of time is spent during the ward stay and discharge phase of care. Patients remain hospitalised for an average of 14 days postoperatively. Overall institutional cost of a TKR at TIH was US$4360.51 (Pakistani rupees 456 981.17) per bilateral TKR surgery. The overall primary cost drivers for the full bundle of care were consumables used during TKR surgery itself, consumables utilised in the wards and personnel costs contributing 57.64%, 27.45% and 12.03% of total costs, respectively.ConclusionUtilising TDABC allowed us to obtain a granular analysis of time and cost that was subsequently used to inform quality process improvement initiatives. In low-resource settings, such as Pakistan, TDABC has the potential to be a useful tool to guide resource allocation and process improvement.
IntroductionHalf of all Ugandans (49%) turn to the private or private-not-for-profit (PNFP) sectors when faced with illness, yet little is known about the capacity of these sectors to deliver surgical services. We partnered with the Ministry of Health to conduct a nationwide mixed-methods evaluation of private and PNFP surgical capacity in Uganda.MethodsA standardized validated facility assessment tool was utilized to assess facility infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, information management, and financing at a randomized nationally representative sample of 16 private and PNFP hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to qualitatively explore facilitating factors and barriers to surgical, obstetric and anaesthesia (SOA) care. Hospitals walk-throughs and retrospective reviews of operative logbooks were completed.ResultsHospitals had a median of 177 beds and two operating rooms. Ten hospitals (62.5%) were able to perform all Bellwether procedures (cesarean section, laparotomy and open fracture treatment). Thirty-day surgical volume averaged 102 cases per facility. While most hospitals had electricity, oxygen, running water, and necessary equipment, many reported pervasive shortages of blood, surgical consumables, and anesthetic drugs. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) geographic distance and limited transportation options delay reaching care; (2) workforce shortages impede the delivery of surgical care; (3) emergency and obstetric volume overwhelm the surgical system; (4) medical and non-medical costs delay seeking, reaching, and receiving care; and (5) there is poor coordination of care with insufficient support systems.ConclusionAs in Uganda’s public sector, barriers to surgery in private and PNFP hospitals in Uganda are cross-cutting and closely tied to resource availability. Critical policy and programmatic developments are essential to build and strengthen Ugandan surgical capacity across all sectors.
Objective: This systematic review with meta-analysis compares health-and provider-based outcomes of thoracoscopic to thoracotomy repair of esophageal atresia. Summary of Background Data: Thoracoscopic surgery has become a routine operation for esophageal atresia repair. However, large studies comparing the safety and efficacy of thoracoscopy to thoracotomy are scarce. Current reviews are obscured with institutional experiences or pool small samples. Methods: PRISMA-compliant search in Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (PROSPERO #CRD42019121862) for original studies comparing thoracoscopy to thoracotomy for esophageal atresia. Quality assessments were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Meta-analyses were presented as odds ratios and standardized mean differences. Results: This is the largest published meta-analysis, including 17 studies and 1043 patients. Thoracoscopy produce shorter hospital stay [standardized mean differences (SMD) À11.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 23.49-6.10; P ¼ 0.0440], time until extubation (SMD À3.22; 95% CI 5.93-0.51; P ¼ 0.0198), time until first oral feeding (SMD À2.84; 95% CI 4.62-1.07; P ¼ 0.0017), and fewer musculoskeletal complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.58; P ¼ 0.0133). Thoracoscopy is as safe as thoracotomy regarding leakage (OR À1.92; 95% CI 0.97-3.80; P ¼ 0.0622), stricture formation (OR 2.66; 95% CI 0.86-3.23; P ¼ 0.1339), stricture dilatation (OR 1.90; 95% CI 0.16-3.88; P ¼ 0.0767), and mortality (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.34-4.16; P ¼ 0.7934). However, thoracoscopy take longer (SMD þ27.69; 95% CI 12.06-43.32; P ¼ 0.0005) and necessitate more antireflux surgery (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.06-4.24; P ¼ 0.0343). Conclusion: Thoracoscopy is effective and safe, with similar or better outcomes than thoracotomy for patients and providers. The only significant drawback is the need for antireflux surgery in the first years of life. Comparative randomized long-term studies are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.