Medical Tourism Abroad : A new challenge to Oman’s health system - Al Dakhilya region experience

Objectives: This study aimed to understand why people seek medical advice abroad given the trouble and expense this entails. The types of medical problems for which treatment abroad was sought, preferred destinations and satisfaction with the treatment were explored. A secondary aim was to give feedback to stakeholders in the health care system on how to handle this issue and meet the needs of the community. Methods: 45 patients who had recently travelled abroad for treatment were asked to complete a questionnaire or were interviewed by telephone. Results: 40 questionnaires were received. 68% of the respondents were male. Orthopaedic diseases were the most common conditions leading patients to seek treatment abroad. Thailand was the most popular destination followed by India (50% and 30% respectively). 85% of respondents went abroad for treatment only, 10% for treatment and tourism and 2.5% were healthy, but travelled abroad for a checkup. Interestingly, 15% of the participants went abroad without first seeking medical care locally. Out of those initially treated in Oman, 38.2% had no specific diagnosis and 38.2% had received treatment, but it was not effective. 73% of respondents obtained information on treatment abroad from a friend. The Internet and medical tourism offices were the least used sources of information. 15% of the patients experienced complications after their treatment abroad. Conclusion: Various facts about medical treatment abroad need to be disseminated to the public. This will necessitate greater effort in public health promotion and education. 

Decision-to-Delivery Time Intervals in Emergency Caesarean Section Cases : Repeated cross-sectional study from Oman

Objectives: In cases of fetal intolerance to labour, meeting the standard decision-to-delivery time interval (DDI) of ≤30 minutes is challenging. This study aimed to assess DDIs in emergency Caesarean section (CS) cases to identify factors causing DDI delays and the impact of a delayed DDI on perinatal outcomes. Methods: This repeated cross-sectional study included all emergency CS procedures performed due to acute fetal distress, antepartum haemorrhage or umbilical cord prolapse at the Nizwa Hospital, Nizwa, Oman. Three audit cycles of three months each were conducted between April 2011 and June 2013, including an initial retrospective cycle and two prospective cycles following the implementation of improvement strategies to address factors causing DDI delays. Poor perinatal outcomes were defined as Apgar scores of <7 at five minutes, admission to the Special Care Baby Unit (SCBU) or a stillbirth. Results: In the initial cycle, a DDI of ≤30 minutes was achieved in 23.8% of 84 cases in comparison to 44.6% of 83 cases in the second cycle. In the third cycle, 60.8% of 79 women had a DDI of ≤30 minutes (P <0.001). No significant differences in perinatal outcomes for cases with a DDI of ≤30 minutes versus 31–60 minutes were observed; however, a DDI of >60 minutes was significantly associated with poor neonatal outcomes in terms of increased SCBU admissions and low Apgar scores (P <0.001 each). Factors causing DDI delays included obtaining consent for the CS procedure, a lack of operating theatre availability and moving patients to the operating theatre. Conclusion: The identification of factors causing DDI delays may provide opportunities to improve perinatal outcomes

Perinatal Mortality Rate as a Quality Indicator of Healthcare in Al-Dakhiliyah Region, Oman

Objectives: This study aimed to provide insight into the causes of stillbirths and early neonatal deaths and identify better intervention strategies. Methods: This was a retrospective study during a 7-year period (January 2003 to December 2009) of all stillbirths and early neonatal deaths at the Nizwa regional referral hospital in Al-Dakhiliyah region, Oman. Results: Of a total 27,668 births, there were 244 stillbirths and 157 early neonatal deaths. The perinatal mortality rate (PMR) was 14.49/1,000 births. The period-specific rates were 17.23/1,000 in 2003, 18.33/1,000 in 2004, 15.20/1,000 in 2005, 12.20/1,000 in 2006, 12.46/1,000 in 2007 and 12.09/1000 in 2008. This decline in the death rate was significant (P = <0.005). The rate rose in 2009 to 15.63/1,000, mostly from an increase in early neonatal deaths (congenital anomalies). The most common identifiable cause of stillbirth was congenital anomalies (18.82%), in which central nervous system anomalies were most common. Other causes include abruptio placentae (13%), cord accidents (12%), and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), while the cause remained unknown in 22.59%. Congenital anomalies accounted for 53.50% of early neonatal deaths followed by prematurity (23.56%) and birth asphyxia (5.73%). Extremes of maternal age were related to higher PMRs. Conclusion: An overall improvement in the stillbirths and neonatal death rates was witnessed; however, further improvement is warranted for common avoidable fetal and maternal risk factors. Extra care needs to be provided for women who are at risk of developing complications such as gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, IUGR, etc

Diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: An international case-cohort study

We conducted an international study of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) diagnosis among a large group of physicians and compared their diagnostic performance to a panel of IPF experts. A total of 1141 respiratory physicians and 34 IPF experts participated. Participants evaluated 60 cases of interstitial lung disease (ILD) without interdisciplinary consultation. Diagnostic agreement was measured using the weighted kappa coefficient (\u3baw). Prognostic discrimination between IPF and other ILDs was used to validate diagnostic accuracy for first-choice diagnoses of IPF and were compared using the Cindex. A total of 404 physicians completed the study. Agreement for IPF diagnosis was higher among expert physicians (\u3baw=0.65, IQR 0.53-0.72, p20 years of experience (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.0-0.73, p=0.229) and non-university hospital physicians with more than 20 years of experience, attending weekly MDT meetings (C-index=0.72, IQR 0.70-0.72, p=0.052), did not differ significantly (p=0.229 and p=0.052 respectively) from the expert panel (C-index=0.74 IQR 0.72-0.75). Experienced respiratory physicians at university-based institutions diagnose IPF with similar prognostic accuracy to IPF experts. Regular MDT meeting attendance improves the prognostic accuracy of experienced non-university practitioners to levels achieved by IPF experts

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p<0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p<0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

Background: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

“Real impact”: Challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – Making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders

“Real impact”: challenges and opportunities in bridging the gap between research and practice – making a difference in industry, policy, and society

Achieving impact from academic research is a challenging, complex, multifaceted, and interconnected topic with a number of competing priorities and key performance indicators driving the extent and reach of meaningful and measurable benefits from research. Academic researchers are incentivised to publish their research in high-ranking journals and academic conferences but also to demonstrate the impact of their outputs through metrics such as citation counts, altmetrics, policy and practice impacts, and demonstrable institutional decision-making influence. However, academic research has been criticized for: its theoretical emphasis, high degree of complexity, jargon-heavy language, disconnect from industry and societal needs, overly complex and lengthy publishing timeframe, and misalignment between academic and industry objectives. Initiatives such as collaborative research projects and technology transfer offices have attempted to deliver meaningful impact, but significant barriers remain in the identification and evaluation of tangible impact from academic research. This editorial focusses on these aspects to deliver a multi-expert perspective on impact by developing an agenda to deliver more meaningful and demonstrable change to how “impact” can be conceptualized and measured to better align with the aims of academia, industry, and wider society. We present the 4D model - Design, Deliver, Disseminate, and Demonstrate - to provide a structured approach for academia to better align research endeavors with practice and deliver meaningful, tangible benefits to stakeholders.</p

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit