Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

The evolution of the specialist surgeon workforce in East, Central and Southern Africa

Background: Access to surgery across sub-Saharan Africa faces persistent challenges with substantial disparity between disease burden and the surgical workforce. This updated situational analysis of specialist surgeons was undertaken to monitor progress toward global surgery development goals and address workforce deficits.Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of the surgeon workforce across 12 of the 14 member countries of The College of Surgeons of East, Central and Southern Africa (COSECSA) was conducted between 2021 and 2022. The data was validated by at least two sources, including medical council registers and direct contact with surgeons via COSECSA Country representatives. Results were compared to data collection undertaken in 2015.Results: 2555 surgeons were identified as practising within the region, a 42% increase since 2015. This represents a rise of only 0.06 surgeons per 100,000. Surgeon density varies widely, with an 18-fold difference between the lowest (Mozambique, 0.22/100,000) and the highest surgeon densities (Namibia, 3.97/100,000). Women surgeons constitute one-tenth of the surgical workforce, a figure stagnant since 2015. Most surgeons (58%) practice in highly populated areas, and 78% work in their country of primary qualification.Conclusion: Currently there is a higher rate of population growth relative to surgical workforce expansion. Innovative approaches in surgical training are crucial to meet 2030 workforce targets. The non-progression in the ratio of female to male surgeons demands attention. Future workforce planning should recognize the growing impact of female doctors on the healthcare workforce and prioritize strategies to support women in surgical careers.</p

Disparities in Access to Trauma Care in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Narrative Review

Abstract Purpose of Review Sub-Saharan Africa is a diverse context with a large burden of injury and trauma-related deaths. Relative to high-income contexts, most of the region is less mature in prehospital and facility-based trauma care, education and training, and trauma care quality assurance. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development recognizes rising inequalities, both within and between countries as a deterrent to growth and development. While disparities in access to trauma care between the region and HICs are more commonly described, internal disparities are equally concerning. We performed a narrative review of internal disparities in trauma care access using a previously described conceptual model. Recent Findings A broad PubMed and EMBASE search from 2010 to 2021 restricted to 48 sub-Saharan African countries was performed. Records focused on disparities in access to trauma care were identified and mapped to de Jager’s four component framework. Search findings, input from contextual experts, comparisons based on other related research, and disaggregation of data helped inform the narrative. Only 21 studies were identified by formal search, with most focused on urban versus rural disparities in geographical access to trauma care. An additional 6 records were identified through citation searches and experts. Disparity in access to trauma care providers, detection of indications for trauma surgery, progression to trauma surgery, and quality care provision were thematically analyzed. No specific data on disparities in access to injury care for all four domains was available for more than half of the countries. From available data, socioeconomic status, geographical location, insurance, gender, and age were recognized disparity domains. South Africa has the most mature trauma systems. Across the region, high quality trauma care access is skewed towards the urban, insured, higher socioeconomic class adult. District hospitals are more poorly equipped and manned, and dedicated trauma centers, blood banks, and intensive care facilities are largely located within cities and in southern Africa. The largest geographical gaps in trauma care are presumably in central Africa, francophone West Africa, and conflict regions of East Africa. Disparities in trauma training opportunities, public–private disparities in provider availability, injury care provider migration, and several other factors contribute to this inequity. National trauma registries will play a role in internal inequity monitoring, and deliberate development implementation of National Surgical, Obstetrics, and Anesthesia plans will help address disparities. Human, systemic, and historical factors supporting these disparities including implicit and explicit bias must be clearly identified and addressed. Systems approaches, strategic trauma policy frameworks, and global and regional coalitions, as modelled by the Global Alliance for Care of the Injured and the Bellagio group, are key. Inequity in access can be reduced by prehospital initiatives, as used in Ghana, and community-based insurance, as modelled by Rwanda. Summary Sub-Saharan African countries have underdeveloped trauma systems. Consistent in the narrative is the rural-urban disparity in trauma care access and the disadvantage of the poor. Further research is needed in view of data disparity. Recognition of these disparities should drive creative equitable solutions and focused interventions, partnerships, accompaniment, and action. </jats:sec

An OxPLORE Initiative Evaluating Children’s Surgery Resources Worldwide: A Cross-sectional Implementation of the OReCS Document

Abstract Background The Global Initiative for Children's Surgery (GICS) group produced the Optimal Resources for Children’s Surgery (OReCS) document in 2019, listing standards of children’s surgical care by level of healthcare facilities within low resource settings. We have previously created and piloted an audit tool based on the OReCS criteria in a high-income setting. In this study, we aimed to validate its use in identifying gaps in children’s surgery provision worldwide. Methods Our OReCS audit tool was implemented in 10 hospitals providing children’s surgery across eight countries. Collaborators were recruited via the Oxford Paediatrics Linking Our Research with Electives (OxPLORE) international network of medical students and trainees. The audit tool measured a hospital’s current capacity for children’s surgery. Data were analysed firstly to express the percentage of ‘essential’ criteria met for each specialty. Secondly, the ‘OxPLORE method’ was used to allocate each hospital specialty a level based on procedures performed and resources available. A User Evaluation Tool (UET) was developed to obtain feedback on the ease of use of the tool. Results The percentage of essential criteria met within each category varied widely between hospitals. The level given to hospitals for subspecialties based on OReCS criteria often did not reflect their self-defined level. The UET indicated the audit tool was practicable across multiple settings. Conclusions We recommend the use of the OReCS criteria to identify areas for local hospital improvement and inform national children’s surgical plans. We have made informed suggestions to increase usability of the OReCS audit tool. </jats:sec