Search

Introduction: Efficient utilisation of surgical resources is essential when providing surgical care in low-resources settings. Countries are developing plans to scale up surgery, though insufficiently based on empirical evidence. This paper investigates the determinants of hospital efficiency in district hospitals in three African countries. Methods: Three-month data, comprising surgical capacity indicators and volumes of major surgical procedures collected from 61 district-level hospitals in Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia, were analysed. Data envelopment analysis was used to calculate average hospital efficiency scores (max. = 1) for each country. Quantile regression analysis was selected to estimate the relationship between surgical volume and production factors. Two-stage bootstrap regression analysis was used to estimate the determinants of hospital efficiency. Results: Average hospital efficiency scores were 0.77 in Tanzania, 0.70 in Malawi and 0.41 in Zambia. Hospitals with high efficiency scores had significantly more surgical staff compared with low efficiency hospitals (DEA score<1). Hospitals that scored high on the most commonly utilised surgical capacity index were not the ones with high surgical volumes or high efficiency. The number of surgical team members, which was lowest in Zambia, was strongly, positively correlated with surgical productivity and efficiency. Conclusion: Hospital efficiency, combining capacity measures and surgical outputs, is a better indicator of surgical performance than capacity measures, which could be misleading if used alone for surgical planning. Investment in the surgical workforce, in particular, is critical to improving district hospital surgical productivity and efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In low-income and middle-income countries, an estimated one in three clinical adverse events happens in non-complex situations and 83% are preventable. Poor quality of care also leads to inefficient use of human, material and financial resources for health. Improving outcomes and mitigating the risk of adverse events require effective monitoring and quality control systems. Aim To assess the state of surgical monitoring and quality control systems at district hospitals (DHs) in Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia. Methods A mixed-methods cross-sectional study of 75 DHs: Malawi (22), Tanzania (30) and Zambia (23). This included a questionnaire, interviews and visual inspection of operating theatre (OT) registers. Data were collected on monitoring and quality systems for surgical activity, processes and outcomes, as well as perceived barriers. Results 53% (n=40/75) of DHs use more than one OT register to record surgical operations. With the exception of standardised printed OT registers in Zambia, the register format (often handwritten books) and type of data collected varied between DHs. Monthly reports were seldom analysed by surgical teams. Less than 30% of all surveyed DHs used surgical safety checklists (n=22/75), and <15% (n=11/75) performed surgical audits. 73% (n=22/30) of DHs in Tanzania and less than half of DHs in Malawi (n=11/22) and Zambia (n=10/23) conducted surgical case reviews. Reports of surgical morbidity and mortality were compiled in 65% (n=15/23) of Zambian DHs, and in less than one-third of DHs in Tanzania (n=9/30) and Malawi (n=4/22). Reported barriers to monitoring and quality systems included an absence of formalised guidelines, continuous training opportunities as well as inadequate accountability mechanisms. Conclusions Surgical monitoring and quality control systems were not standard among sampled DHs. Improvements are needed in standardisation of quality measures used; and in ensuring data completeness, analysis and utilisation for improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: District-level hospitals (DLHs) are the main providers of surgical services for rural populations in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Skilled teams are essential for surgical care, and gaps in anesthesia impact negatively on surgical capacity and outcomes. This study, from a baseline of a project scaling-up access to safe surgical and anesthesia care in Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia, illustrates the deficit of anesthesia care in DLHs., Methods: We undertook an in-depth investigation of anesthesia capacity in 76 DLHs across the 3 countries, July to November 2017, using a mixed-methods approach. The quantitative component assessed district-level anesthesia capacity using a standardized scoring system based on an adapted and extended Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment and Supplies (PIPES) Index. The qualitative component involved semistructured interviews with providers from 33 DLHs, exploring how weaknesses in anesthesia impacted district surgical team practices and quality, volume, and scope of service provision., Results: Anesthesia care at the district level in these countries is provided only by nonphysician anesthetists, some of whom have no formal training. Ketamine anesthesia is widely used in all hospitals, compensating for shortages of other forms of anesthesia. Pediatric size supplies/equipment were frequently missing. Anesthesia PIPES index scores in Malawi (M = 8.0), Zambia (M = 8.3), and Tanzania (M = 8.4) were similar (P = .59), but an analysis of individual PIPES components revealed important cross-country differences. Irregular availability of reliable equipment and supply is a particular priority in Malawi, where only 29% of facilities have uninterrupted access to electricity and 23% have constant access to water, among other challenges. Zambia is mostly affected by staffing shortages, with 30% of surveyed hospitals lacking an anesthesia provider. The challenge that stood out in Tanzania was nonavailability of functioning anesthesia machines among frequent shortages of staff and other equipment., Conclusions: Tanzania, Malawi, and Zambia are falling far short of ensuring universal access to safe and affordable surgical and anesthesia care for district and rural populations. Mixed-methods situation analyses, undertaken in collaboration with anesthesia specialists-measuring and understanding deficits in district hospital anesthetic staff, equipment, and supplies-are needed to address the critical neglect of anesthesia that is essential to providing surgical responses to the needs of rural populations in SSA.