Search

Background: In 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates. Methods: Nationally representative data were compiled for all World Health Organization (WHO) member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates. Results: Of all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed. Conclusion: Surgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution. This paper examines the availability, comparability and utility of six global surgery indicators. Surgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution. An update, and a plea for improvement [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulse oximetry is widely accepted as essential monitoring for safe anaesthesia, yet is frequently unavailable in resource-limited settings. The Lifebox pulse oximeter, and associated management training programme, was delivered to 79 non-physician anaesthetists attending the 2011 Uganda Society of Anaesthesia Annual Conference. Using a standardised assessment, recipients were tested for their knowledge of oximetry use and hypoxia management before, immediately following and 3-5 months after the training. Before the course, the median (IQR [range]) test score for the anaesthetists was 36 (34-39 [26-44]) out of a maximum of 50 points. Immediately following the course, the test score increased to 41 (38-43 [25-47]); p < 0.0001 and at the follow-up visit at 3-5 months it was 41 (39-44 [33-49]); p = 0.001 compared with immediate post-training test scores, and 75/79 (95%) oximeters were in routine clinical use. This method of introduction resulted in a high rate of uptake of oximeters into clinical practice and a demonstrable retention of knowledge in a resource-limited setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]