Russell L. Gruen

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

Early management of severe traumatic brain injury

Severe traumatic brain injury remains a major health-care problem worldwide. Although major progress has been made in understanding of the pathophysiology of this injury, this has not yet led to substantial improvements in outcome. In this report, we address present knowledge and its limitations, research innovations, and clinical implications. Improved outcomes for patients with severe traumatic brain injury could result from progress in pharmacological and other treatments, neural repair and regeneration, optimisation of surgical indications and techniques, and combination and individually targeted treatments. Expanded classification of traumatic brain injury and innovations in research design will underpin these advances. We are optimistic that further gains in outcome for patients with severe traumatic brain injury will be achieved in the next decade.

The Effect of Provider Case Volume on Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

The authors systematically reviewed the association between provider case volume and mortality in 101 publications involving greater than 1 million patients with esophageal, gastric, hepatic, pancreatic, colon, or rectal cancer, of whom more than 70,000 died. The majority of studies addressed the relation between hospital surgical case volume and short‐term perioperative mortality. Few studies addressed surgeon case volume or evaluated long‐term survival outcomes. Common methodologic limitations were failure to control for potential confounders, post hoc categorization of provider volume, and unit of analysis errors. A significant volume effect was evident for the majority of gastrointestinal cancers; with each doubling of hospital case volume, the odds of perioperative death decreased by 0.1 to 0.23. The authors calculated that between 10 and 50 patients per year, depending on cancer type, needed to be moved from a “low‐volume” hospital to a “high‐volume” hospital to prevent 1 additional volume‐associated perioperative death. Despite this, approximately one‐third of all analyses did not find a significant volume effect on mortality. The heterogeneity of results from individual studies calls into question the validity of case volume as a proxy for care quality, and leads the authors to conclude that more direct quality measures and the validity of their use to inform policy should also be explored. CA Cancer J Clin 2009;59:192–211.

Haemorrhage control in severely injured patients

Most surgeons have adopted damage control surgery for severely injured patients, in which the initial operation is abbreviated after control of bleeding and contamination to allow ongoing resuscitation in the intensive-care unit. Developments in early resuscitation that emphasise rapid control of bleeding, restrictive volume replacement, and prevention or early management of coagulopathy are making definitive surgery during the first operation possible for many patients. Improved topical haemostatic agents and interventional radiology are becoming increasingly useful adjuncts to surgical control of bleeding. Better understanding of trauma-induced coagulopathy is paving the way for the replacement of blind, unguided protocols for blood component therapy with systemic treatments targeting specific deficiencies in coagulation. Similarly, treatments targeting dysregulated inflammatory responses to severe injury are under investigation. As point-of-care diagnostics become more suited to emergency environments, timely targeted intervention for haemorrhage control will result in better patient outcomes and reduced demand for blood products. Our Series paper describes how our understanding of the roles of the microcirculation, inflammation, and coagulation has shaped new and emerging treatment strategies.

Outreach and improved access to specialist services for indigenous people in remote Australia: the requirements for sustainability

Study objective: To examine the role of specialist outreach in supporting primary health care and overcoming the barriers to health care faced by the indigenous population in remote areas of Australia, and to examine issues affecting its sustainability. Design: A process evaluation of a specialist outreach service, using health service utilisation data and interviews with health professionals and patients. Setting: The Top End of Australias Northern Territory, where Darwin is the capital city and the major base for hospital and specialist services. In the rural and remote areas outside Darwin there are many small, predominantly indigenous communities, which are greatly disadvantaged by a severe burden of disease and limited access to medical care. Participants: Seventeen remote health practitioners, five specialists undertaking outreach, five regional health administrators, and three patients from remote communities. Main results: The barriers faced by many remote indigenous people in accessing specialist and hospital care are substantial. Outreach delivery of specialist services has overcome some of the barriers relating to distance, communication, and cultural inappropriateness of services and has enabled an over fourfold increase in the number of consultations with people from remote communities. Key issues affecting sustainability include: an adequate specialist base; an unmet demand from primary care; integration with, accountability to and capacity building for a multidisciplinary framework centred in primary care; good communication; visits that are regular and predictable; funding and coordination that recognises responsibilities to both hospitals and the primary care sector; and regular evaluation. Conclusions: In a setting where there is a disadvantaged population with inadequate access to medical care, specialist outreach from a regional centre can provide a more equitable means of service delivery than hospital based services alone. A sustainable outreach service that is organised appropriately, responsive to local community needs, and has an adequate regional specialist base can effectively integrate with and support primary health care processes. Poorly planned and conducted outreach, however, can draw resources away and detract from primary health care.

Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

Julian Elliott and colleagues discuss how the current inability to keep systematic reviews up-to-date hampers the translation of knowledge into action. They propose living systematic reviews as a contribution to evidence synthesis to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence.

Estimated need for surgery worldwide based on prevalence of diseases: a modelling strategy for the WHO Global Health Estimate

BACKGROUND Surgery is a foundational component of health-care systems. However, previous efforts to integrate surgical services into global health initiatives do not reflect the scope of surgical need and many health systems do not provide essential interventions. We estimate the minimum global volume of surgical need to address prevalent diseases in 21 epidemiological regions from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD). METHODS Prevalence data were obtained from GBD 2010 and organised into 119 disease states according to the WHOs Global Health Estimate (GHE). These data, representing 187 countries, were then apportioned into the 21 GBD epidemiological regions. Using previously defined values for the incident need for surgery for each of the 119 GHE disease states, we calculate minimum global need for surgery based on the prevalence of each condition in each region. FINDINGS We estimate that at least 321·5 million surgical procedures would be needed to address the burden of disease for a global population of 6·9 billion in 2010. Minimum rates of surgical need vary across regions, ranging from 3383 operations per 100 000 in central Latin America to 6495 operations per 100 000 in western sub-Saharan Africa. Global surgical need also varied across subcategories of disease, ranging from 131 412 procedures for nutritional deficiencies to 45·8 million procedures for unintentional injuries. INTERPRETATION The estimated need for surgical procedures worldwide is large and addresses a broad spectrum of disease states. Surgical need varies between regions of the world according to disease prevalence and many countries do not meet the basic needs of their populations. These estimates could be useful for policy makers, funders, and ministries of health as they consider how to incorporate surgical capacity into health systems. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers.Differences between health systems may often result in a policy or programme option that is used in one setting not being feasible or acceptable in another. Or these differences may result in an option not working in the same way in another setting, or even achieving different impacts in another setting. A key challenge that policymakers and those supporting them must face is therefore the need to understand whether research evidence about an option can be applied to their setting. Systematic reviews make this task easier by summarising the evidence from studies conducted in a variety of different settings. Many systematic reviews, however, do not provide adequate descriptions of the features of the actual settings in which the original studies were conducted. In this article, we suggest questions to guide those assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review to a specific setting. These are: 1. Were the studies included in a systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods? 2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option? 3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way? 4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same? 5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? Even if there are reasonable grounds for concluding that the impacts of an option might differ in a specific setting, insights can almost always be drawn from a systematic review about possible options, as well as approaches to the implementation of options and to monitoring and evaluation.

Trauma registries in developing countries: A review of the published experience ☆

BACKGROUND The burden of injury is greatest in developing countries. Trauma systems have reduced mortality in developed countries and trauma registries are known to be integral to monitoring and improving trauma care. There are relatively few trauma registries in developing countries and no reviews describing the experience of each registry. The aim of this study was to examine the collective published experience of trauma registries in developing countries. METHODS A structured review of the literature was performed. Relevant abstracts were identified by searching databases for all articles regarding a trauma registry in a developing country. A tool was used to abstract trauma registry details, including processes of data collection and analysis. RESULTS There were 84 articles, 76 of which were sourced from 47 registries. The remaining eight articles were perspectives. Most were from Iran, followed by China, Jamaica, South Africa and Uganda. Only two registries used the Injury Severity Score (ISS) to define inclusion criteria. Most registries collected data on variables from all five variable groups (demographics, injury event, process of care, injury severity and outcome). Several registries collected data for less than a total of 20 variables. Only three registries measured disability using a score. The most commonly used scores of injury severity were the ISS, followed by Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS). CONCLUSION Amongst the small number of trauma registries in developing countries, there is a large variation in processes. The implementation of trauma systems with trauma registries is feasible in under-resourced environments where they are desperately needed.

Indicators of the quality of trauma care and the performance of trauma systems.

Valid and reliable measures of trauma system performance are needed to guide improvement activities, benchmarking and public reporting, future investment and research. Traditional measures of in‐hospital mortality fail to take into account prehospital and posthospital care, recovery after discharge, and the nature and costs of long‐term disability.