Nakul P Raykar

Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development.

Remarkable gains have been made in global health in the past 25 years, but progress has not been uniform. Mortality and morbidity from common conditions needing surgery have grown in the world’s poorest regions, both in real terms and relative to other health gains. At the same time, development of safe, essential, life-saving surgical and anesthesia care in low- and middleincome countries (LMICs) has stagnated or regressed. In the absence of surgical care, case-fatality rates are high for common, easily treatable conditions including appendicitis, hernia, fractures, obstructed labor, congenital anomalies, and breast and cervical cancer. Although the term, low- and middleincome countries (LMICs), has been used throughout the report for brevity, the Commission realizes that tremendous income diversity exists between and within this group of countries. In 2015, many LMICs are facing a multifaceted burden of infectious disease, maternal disease, neonatal disease, noncommunicable diseases, and injuries. Surgical and anesthesia care are essential for the treatment of many of these conditions and represent an integral component of a functional, responsive, and resilient health system. In view of the large projected increase in the incidence of cancer, road traffic injuries, and cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in LMICs, the need for surgical services in these regions will continue to rise substantially from now until 2030. Reduction of death and disability hinges on access to surgical and anesthesiacare,whichshouldbeavailable, affordable,timely,andsafetoensuregood coverage, uptake, and outcomes. Despite a growing need, the develop

Global access to surgical care: a modelling study

BACKGROUND More than 2 billion people are unable to receive surgical care based on operating theatre density alone. The vision of the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery is universal access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. We aimed to estimate the number of individuals worldwide without access to surgical services as defined by the Commissions vision. METHODS We modelled access to surgical services in 196 countries with respect to four dimensions: timeliness, surgical capacity, safety, and affordability. We built a chance tree for each country to model the probability of surgical access with respect to each dimension, and from this we constructed a statistical model to estimate the proportion of the population in each country that does not have access to surgical services. We accounted for uncertainty with one-way sensitivity analyses, multiple imputation for missing data, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. FINDINGS At least 4·8 billion people (95% posterior credible interval 4·6-5·0 [67%, 64-70]) of the worlds population do not have access to surgery. The proportion of the population without access varied widely when stratified by epidemiological region: greater than 95% of the population in south Asia and central, eastern, and western sub-Saharan Africa do not have access to care, whereas less than 5% of the population in Australasia, high-income North America, and western Europe lack access. INTERPRETATION Most of the worlds population does not have access to surgical care, and access is inequitably distributed. The near absence of access in many low-income and middle-income countries represents a crisis, and as the global health community continues to support the advancement of universal health coverage, increasing access to surgical services will play a central role in ensuring health care for all. FUNDING None.

Global Surgery 2030: Evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development

John G Meara*, Andrew J M Leather*, Lars Hagander*, Blake C Alkire, Nivaldo Alonso, Emmanuel A Ameh, Stephen W Bickler, Lesong Conteh, Anna J Dare, Justine Davies, Eunice Dérivois Mérisier, Shenaaz El-Halabi, Paul E Farmer, Atul Gawande, Rowan Gillies, Sarah L M Greenberg, Caris E Grimes, Russell L Gruen, Edna Adan Ismail, Thaim Buya Kamara, Chris Lavy, Ganbold Lundeg, Nyengo C Mkandawire, Nakul P Raykar, Johanna N Riesel, Edgar Rodas‡, John Rose, Nobhojit Roy, Mark G Shrime, Richard Sullivan, Stéphane Verguet, David Watters, Thomas G Weiser, Iain H Wilson, Gavin Yamey, Winnie Yip

Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development

Remarkable gains have been made in global health in the past 25 years, but progress has not been uniform. Mortality and morbidity from common conditions needing surgery have grown in the world’s poorest regions, both in real terms and relative to other health gains. At the same time, development of safe, essential, life-saving surgical and anaesthesia care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) has stagnated or regressed. In the absence of surgical care, case-fatality rates are high for common, easily treatable conditions including appendicitis, hernia, fractures, obstructed labour, congenital anomalies, and breast and cervical cancer. In 2015, many LMICs are facing a multifaceted burden of infectious disease, maternal disease, neonatal disease, non-communicable diseases, and injuries. Surgical and anaesthesia care are essential for the treatment of many of these conditions and represent an integral component of a functional, responsive, and resilient health system. In view of the large projected increase in the incidence of cancer, road traffic injuries, and cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in LMICs, the need for surgical services in these regions will continue to rise substantially from now until 2030. Reduction of death and disability hinges on access to surgical and anaesthesia care, which should be available, affordable, timely, and safe to ensure good coverage, uptake, and outcomes. Despite growing need, the development and delivery of surgical and anaesthesia care in LMICs has been nearly absent from the global health discourse. Little has been written about the human and economic effect of surgical conditions, the state of surgical care, or the potential strategies for scale-up of surgical services in LMICs. To begin to address these crucial gaps in knowledge, policy, and action, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery was launched in January, 2014. The Commission brought together an international, multi- disciplinary team of 25 commissioners, supported by advisors and collaborators in more than 110 countries and six continents. We formed four working groups that focused on thedomains of health-care delivery and management; work-force, training, and education; economics and finance; and information management. Our Commission has five key messages, a set of indicators and recommendations to improve access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care in LMICs, and a template for a national surgical plan.

Global Surgery 2030: a roadmap for high income country actors

The Millennium Development Goals have ended and the Sustainable Development Goals have begun, marking a shift in the global health landscape. The frame of reference has changed from a focus on 8 development priorities to an expansive set of 17 interrelated goals intended to improve the well-being of all people. In this time of change, several groups, including the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, have brought a critical problem to the fore: 5 billion people lack access to safe, affordable surgical and anaesthesia care when needed. The magnitude of this problem and the worlds new focus on strengthening health systems mandate reimagined roles for and renewed commitments from high income country actors in global surgery. To discuss the way forward, on 6 May 2015, the Commission held its North American launch event in Boston, Massachusetts. Panels of experts outlined the current state of knowledge and agreed on the roles of surgical colleges and academic medical centres; trainees and training programmes; academia; global health funders; the biomedical devices industry, and news media and advocacy organisations in building sustainable, resilient surgical systems. This paper summarises these discussions and serves as a consensus statement providing practical advice to these groups. It traces a common policy agenda between major actors and provides a roadmap for maximising benefit to surgical patients worldwide. To close the access gap by 2030, individuals and organisations must work collectively, interprofessionally and globally. High income country actors must abandon colonial narratives and work alongside low and middle income country partners to build the surgical systems of the future.

Geospatial mapping to estimate timely access to surgical care in nine low-income and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery calls for universal access to safe, affordable, and timely surgical care. Two requisite components of timely access are (1) the ability to reach a surgical provider in a given timeframe, and (2) the ability to receive appropriately prompt care from that provider. We chose a threshold of 2 h in view of its relevance in time-to-death in post-partum haemorrhage. Here, we use geospatial mapping to enumerate the percentage of a nations population living within 2 h of a surgeon and the surgeon-to-population ratio for each provider. METHODS Geospatial mapping was used to identify the population living within a 2-h driving distance (access zone) of a health-care facility staffed by a surgeon. Surgeon locations were extracted from Ministries of Health, professional society databases, and published literature for countries which had available data. Data were reviewed by individuals knowledgeable of in-country distribution. Spatial distribution of providers was mapped with Google Maps engine. Access zones were constructed around every provider through estimation of driving times in Google Maps. The number of people living within zones was estimated with the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center Population Estimation Service. Surgeon-to-population ratios were constructed for every individual access zone and averaged to report a single ratio. FINDINGS Results (% countrys population living within an access zone; average surgeon:population ratio within all access zones) are reported for nine countries with available data: Somaliland (16·9%; 1:118 306), Botswana (31·0%; 1:64 635), Ethiopia (39·6%; 1:229 696), Rwanda (41·3%; 1:158 484), Namibia (43·4%; 1:69 385), Zimbabwe (54%; 1:148 292), Mongolia (55·5%; 1:10 500), Sierra Leone (70·3%; 1:106 742), and Pakistan (84·4%, 1:139 299). Surgeon-to-population ratios vary substantially even within countries; in Sierra Leone, urban access zones have a ratio of 1:45 058 and rural access zones have a ratio of 1:467 929. INTERPRETATION Surgical access is poor in many low-income and middle-income countries, even when using a narrow definition of surgical access consisting only of timeliness. Living outside of an access zone makes timely access to surgical care highly unlikely, and in view of low surgeon-to-population ratios and poor prehospital transport, even living within a 2-h access zone might not confer 2-h access. Investments in infrastructure and training must be prioritised to address widespread disparity in access to timely surgery. FUNDING None.

The How Project: understanding contextual challenges to global surgical care provision in low-resource settings

Introduction 5 billion people around the world do not have access to safe, affordable, timely surgical care. This series of qualitative interviews was launched by The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) with the aim of understanding the contextual challenges—the specific circumstances—faced by surgical care providers in low-resource settings who care for impoverished patients, and how those providers overcome these challenges. Methods From January 2014 to February 2015, 20 LCoGS collaborators conducted semistructured interviews with 148 surgical providers in low-resource settings in 21 countries. Stratified purposive sampling was used to include both rural and urban providers, and reputational case selection identified individuals. Interviewers were trained with an implementation manual. Following immersion into de-identified texts from completed interviews, topical coding and further analysis of coded texts was completed by an independent analyst with periodic validation from a second analyst. Results Providers described substantial financial, geographic and cultural barriers to patient access. Rural surgical teams reported a lack of a trained workforce and insufficient infrastructure, equipment, supplies and banked blood. Urban providers face overcrowding, exacerbated by minimal clinical and administrative support, and limited interhospital care coordination. Many providers across contexts identified national health policies that do not reflect the realities of resource-poor settings. Some findings were region-specific, such as weak patient–provider relationships and unreliable supply chains. In all settings, surgical teams have created workarounds to deliver care despite the challenges. Discussion While some differences exist between countries, the barriers to safe surgery and anaesthesia are overall consistent and resource-dependent. Efforts to advance and expand global surgery must address these commonalities, while local policymakers can tailor responses to key contextual differences.

Assessing the Brazilian surgical system with six surgical indicators: a descriptive and modelling study

Background Brazil boasts a health scheme that aspires to provide universal coverage, but its surgical system has rarely been analysed. In an effort to strengthen surgical systems worldwide, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed a collection of 6 standardised indicators: 2-hour access to surgery, surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate (POMR) and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. This study aims to characterise the Brazilian surgical health system with these newly devised indicators while gaining understanding on the complexity of the indicators themselves. Methods Using Brazils national healthcare database, commonly reported healthcare variables were used to calculate or simulate the 6 surgical indicators. Access to surgery was calculated using hospital locations, surgical workforce density was calculated using locations of surgeons, anaesthesiologists and obstetricians (SAO), and surgical volume and POMR were identified with surgical procedure codes. The rates of protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure were modelled using cost of surgical inpatient hospitalisations and a γ distribution of incomes based on Gini and gross domestic product/capita. Findings In 2014, SAO density was 34.7/100 000 population, surgical volume was 4433 procedures/100 000 people and POMR was 1.71%. 79.4% of surgical patients were protected against impoverishing expenditure and 84.6% were protected against catastrophic expenditure due to surgery each year. 2-hour access to surgery was not able to be calculated from national health data, but a proxy measure suggested that 97.2% of the population has 2-hour access to a hospital that may be able to provide surgery. Geographic disparities were seen in all indicators. Interpretation Brazils public surgical system meets several key benchmarks. Geographic disparities, however, are substantial and raise concerns of equity. Policies should focus on stimulating appropriate geographic allocation of the surgical workforce and better distribution of surgical volume. In some cases, where benchmarks for each indicator are met, supplemental analysis can further inform our understanding of health systems. This measured and systematic evaluation should be encouraged for all nations seeking to better understand their surgical systems.

Quality of essential surgical care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE Quality of care is an emerging area of focus in the surgical disciplines. However, much of the emphasis on quality is limited to high-income countries. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on the quality of essential surgical care in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC). DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, Cinahl, Embase and CAB Abstracts using three domains: quality of care, surgery and LMIC. STUDY SELECTION We limited our review to studies of essential surgeries that pertained to all three search domains. DATA EXTRACTION We extracted data on study characteristics, type of surgery and the way in which quality was studied. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS 354 studies were included. 281 (79.4%) were single-center studies and nearly half (n = 169, 46.9%) did not specify the level of facility. 207 studies reported on mortality (58.47%) and 325 reported on a morbidity (91.81%), most commonly surgical site infection (n = 190, 53.67%). Of the Institute of Medicine domains of quality, studies were most commonly of safety (n = 310, 87.57%) and effectiveness (n = 180, 50.85%) and least commonly of equity (n = 21, 5.93%). CONCLUSION We find that while there are numerous studies that report on some aspects of quality of care, much of the data is single center and observational. Additionally, there is variability on which outcomes are reported both within and across specialties. Finally, we find under-reporting of parameters of equity and timeliness, which may be critical areas for research moving forward.

The Economic Case for Surgical Care in Low-Resource Settings

Research over the past 15 years has dramatically changed how surgical care is viewed within global health. Once thought as too expensive and inappropriate for settings of limited resources, surgical care is now recognized as an essential component of strong health systems and capable of treating a wide spectrum of important clinical problems in a highly cost-effective manner. More so, the economic losses from untreated surgical conditions far exceed any expenditure that would be required to scale-up surgical care—making surgical care an attractive investment for promoting economic growth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this chapter, we trace the remarkable transformation in thinking that has occurred around the economic issues of surgical care in settings of limited resources. To do so, we provide a brief overview of global economic development and its relationship to health, review the economic case for surgical care in LMICs, and conclude with a discussion of financing of surgical care in the era of new Sustainable Development Goals. With efforts already underway to scale-up surgical care in some countries, the economics of surgical care will continue to be one of the most important topics in global surgery.