• Lancet · Apr 2015

    A qualitative study exploring contextual challenges to surgical care provision in 21 LMICs.

    • Nakul P Raykar, Rachel R Yorlets, Charles Liu, Sarah L M Greenberg, Meera Kotagal, Roberta Goldman, Nobhojit Roy, John G Meara, and Rowan D Gillies.
    • Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: nraykar@bidmc.harvard.edu.
    • Lancet. 2015 Apr 27;385 Suppl 2:S15.

    BackgroundBillions of people worldwide are without access to safe, affordable, and timely surgical care. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) conducted a qualitative study to understand the contextual challenges to surgical care provision in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and how providers overcome them.MethodsA semi-structured interview was administered to 143 care providers in 21 LMICs using stratified purposive sampling to include both urban and rural areas and reputational case selection to identify individual providers. Interviews were conducted in Argentina (n=5), Botswana (3), Brazil (10), Cape Verde (4), China (14), Colombia (4), Ecuador (6), Ethiopia (10), India (15), Indonesia (1), Mexico (9), Mongolia (4), Namibia (2), Pakistan (13), Peru (5), Philippines (1), Sierra Leone (11), Tanzania (5), Thailand (2), Uganda (9), and Zimbabwe (15). Local collaborators of LCoGS conducted interviews using a standardised implementation manual and interview guide. Questions revolved around challenges or barriers in the area of access to care for patients; challenges or barriers in the area of in-hospital care for patients; and challenges or barriers in the area of governance or health policy. De-identified interviews were coded and interpreted by an independent analyst.FindingsProviders across continent and context noted significant geographical, financial, and educational barriers to access. Surgical care provision in the rural hospital setting was hindered by a paucity of trained workforce, and inadequacies in basic infrastructure, equipment, supplies, and access to banked blood. In urban areas, providers face high patient volumes combined with staff shortages, minimal administrative support, and poor interhospital care coordination. At a policy level, providers identified regulations that were inconsistent with the realities of low-resource care provision (eg, a requirement to provide 'free' care to certain populations but without any guarantee for funding). Regional variation did exist on some matters, particularly related to prevalence of patient-provider mistrust and supply chain failures. Everywhere, providers have created innovative workarounds to overcome some of these barriers, such as clever financing mechanisms for planned surgery (eg, raising donated farm animals for cash in Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, and India), provision in scheduling and accommodations to facilitate patients from afar, reduction of cost and waste through re-sterilisation of disposable supplies, and locally sourcing consumables (eg, hand cleaning solution made of alcohol from the local distillery in India).InterpretationAlthough some variation exists between countries, the challenges to surgical care provision are largely consistent and based on local resource availability; underfunded rural hospitals faced similar challenges worldwide. Global efforts to scale-up surgical services can focus on these commonalities (eg, investments in infrastructure, workforce), while local governments can tailor solutions to key contextual differences (eg, community-based outreach, supply chains, professional management, and interhospital coordination).FundingNone.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…