Task-Shifting and Task-Sharing in Neurosurgery: An International Survey of Current Practices in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Because nearly 23,000 more neurosurgeons are needed globally to address 5 million essential neurosurgical cases that go untreated each year, there is an increasing interest in task-shifting and task-sharing (TS/S), delegating neurosurgical tasks to nonspecialists, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This global survey aimed to provide a cross-sectional understanding of the prevalence and structure of current neurosurgical TS/S practices in LMICs. METHODS: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care in LMICs with a Web-based survey link via electronic mailing lists of continental societies and various neurosurgical groups, conference announcements, e-mailing lists, and social media platforms. Country-level data were analyzed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The survey yielded 127 responses from 47 LMICs; 20 countries (42.6%) reported ongoing TS/S. Most TS/S procedures involved emergency interventions, the top 3 being burr holes, craniotomy for hematoma evacuation, and external ventricular drain. Most (65.0%) believed that their Ministry of Health does not endorse TS/S (24.0% unsure), and only 11% believed that TS/S training was structured. There were few opportunities for TS/S providers to continue medical education (11.6%) or maintenance of certification (9.4%, or receive remuneration (4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: TS/S is ongoing in many LMICs without substantial structure or oversight, which is concerning for patient safety. These data invite future clinical outcomes studies to assess effectiveness and discussions on policy recommendations such as standardized curricula, certification protocols, specialist oversight, and referral networks to increase the level of TS/S care and to continue to increase the specialist workforce

Neurotrauma clinicians' perspectives on the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up following traumatic brain injury in low-income and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health concern; however, low/middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. The WHO recognises the significant differences between patient outcomes following injuries in high-income countries versus those in LMICs. Outcome data are not reliably recorded in LMICs and despite improved injury surveillance data, data on disability and long-term functional outcomes remain poorly recorded. Therefore, the full picture of outcome post-TBI in LMICs is largely unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional pragmatic qualitative study using individual semistructured interviews with clinicians who have experience of neurotrauma in LMICs. The aim of this study is to understand the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up of patients following TBI in LMICs. For the purpose of the study, we define 'long-term' as any data collected following discharge from hospital. We aim to conduct individual semistructured interviews with 24-48 neurosurgeons, beginning February 2020. Interviews will be recorded and transcribed verbatim. A reflexive thematic analysis will be conducted supported by NVivo software. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee approved this study in February 2020. Ethical issues within this study include consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and data protection. Participants will provide informed consent and their contributions will be kept confidential. Participants will be free to withdraw at any time without penalty; however, their interview data can only be withdrawn up to 1 week after data collection. Findings generated from the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders such as the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications

Global Perspectives on Task Shifting and Task Sharing in Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical task shifting and task sharing (TS/S), delegating clinical care to non-neurosurgeons, is ongoing in many hospital systems in which neurosurgeons are scarce. Although TS/S can increase access to treatment, it remains highly controversial. This survey investigated perceptions of neurosurgical TS/S to elucidate whether it is a permissible temporary solution to the global workforce deficit. METHODS: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care. A digital survey link was distributed through electronic mailing lists of continental neurosurgical societies and various collectives, conference announcements, and social media platforms (July 2018-January 2019). Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and univariate regression of Likert Scale scores. RESULTS: Survey respondents represented 105 of 194 World Health Organization member countries (54.1%; 391 respondents, 162 from high-income countries and 229 from low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]). The most agreed on statement was that task sharing is preferred to task shifting. There was broad consensus that both task shifting and task sharing should require competency-based evaluation, standardized training endorsed by governing organizations, and maintenance of certification. When perspectives were stratified by income class, LMICs were significantly more likely to agree that task shifting is professionally disruptive to traditional training, task sharing should be a priority where human resources are scarce, and to call for additional TS/S regulation, such as certification and formal consultation with a neurosurgeon (in person or electronic/telemedicine). CONCLUSIONS: Both LMIC and high-income countries agreed that task sharing should be prioritized over task shifting and that additional recommendations and regulations could enhance care. These data invite future discussions on policy and training programs

An international, prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury epidemiology study protocol: GEO-TBI: Incidence [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is unclear – it is estimated to affect 27–69 million individuals yearly with the bulk of the TBI burden in low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Research has highlighted significant between-hospital variability in TBI outcomes following emergency surgery, but the overall incidence and epidemiology of TBI remains unclear. To address this need, we established the Global Epidemiology and Outcomes following Traumatic Brain Injury (GEO-TBI) registry, enabling recording of all TBI cases requiring admission irrespective of surgical treatment. Objective The GEO-TBI: Incidence study aims to describe TBI epidemiology and outcomes according to development indices, and to highlight best practices to facilitate further comparative research. Design Multi-centre, international, registry-based, prospective cohort study. Subjects Any unit managing TBI and participating in the GEO-TBI registry will be eligible to join the study. Each unit will select a 90-day study period. All TBI patients meeting the registry inclusion criteria (neurosurgical/ICU admission or neurosurgical operation) during the selected study period will be included in the GEO-TBI: Incidence. Methods All units will form a study team, that will gain local approval, identify eligible patients and input data. Data will be collected via the secure registry platform and validated after collection. Identifiers may be collected if required for local utility in accordance with the GEO-TBI protocol. Data Data related to initial presentation, interventions and short-term outcomes will be collected in line with the GEO-TBI core dataset, developed following consensus from an iterative survey and feedback process. Patient demographics, injury details, timing and nature of interventions and post-injury care will be collected alongside associated complications. The primary outcome measures for the study will be the Glasgow Outcome at Discharge Scale (GODS) and 14-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures will be mortality and extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) at the most recent follow-up timepoint

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Variation in postoperative outcomes of patients with intracranial tumors: insights from a prospective international cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: This study assessed the international variation in surgical neuro-oncology practice and 30-day outcomes of patients who had surgery for an intracranial tumor during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We prospectively included adults aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for a malignant or benign intracranial tumor across 55 international hospitals from 26 countries. Each participating hospital recorded cases for 3 consecutive months from the start of the pandemic. We categorized patients’ location by World Bank income groups (high [HIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and low- and lower-middle [LLMIC]). Main outcomes were a change from routine management, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 30-day mortality. We used a Bayesian multilevel logistic regression stratified by hospitals and adjusted for key confounders to estimate the association between income groups and mortality. Results: Among 1016 patients, the number of patients in each income group was 765 (75.3%) in HIC, 142 (14.0%) in UMIC, and 109 (10.7%) in LLMIC. The management of 200 (19.8%) patients changed from usual care, most commonly delayed surgery. Within 30 days after surgery, 14 (1.4%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis and 39 (3.8%) patients died. In the multivariable model, LLMIC was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.83, 95% credible interval 1.37–5.74) compared to HIC. Conclusions: The first wave of the pandemic had a significant impact on surgical decision-making. While the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 30 days after surgery was low, there was a disparity in mortality between countries and this warrants further examination to identify any modifiable factors

Global Perspectives on Task Shifting and Task Sharing in Neurosurgery.

Background: Neurosurgical task shifting and task sharing (TS/S), delegating clinical care to non-neurosurgeons, is ongoing in many hospital systems in which neurosurgeons are scarce. Although TS/S can increase access to treatment, it remains highly controversial. This survey investigated perceptions of neurosurgical TS/S to elucidate whether it is a permissible temporary solution to the global workforce deficit. Methods: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care. A digital survey link was distributed through electronic mailing lists of continental neurosurgical societies and various collectives, conference announcements, and social media platforms (July 2018-January 2019). Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and univariate regression of Likert Scale scores. Results: Survey respondents represented 105 of 194 World Health Organization member countries (54.1%; 391 respondents, 162 from high-income countries and 229 from low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]). The most agreed on statement was that task sharing is preferred to task shifting. There was broad consensus that both task shifting and task sharing should require competency-based evaluation, standardized training endorsed by governing organizations, and maintenance of certification. When perspectives were stratified by income class, LMICs were significantly more likely to agree that task shifting is professionally disruptive to traditional training, task sharing should be a priority where human resources are scarce, and to call for additional TS/S regulation, such as certification and formal consultation with a neurosurgeon (in person or electronic/telemedicine). Conclusions: Both LMIC and high-income countries agreed that task sharing should be prioritized over task shifting and that additional recommendations and regulations could enhance care. These data invite future discussions on policy and training programs

Global Perspectives on Task Shifting and Task Sharing in Neurosurgery

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical task shifting and task sharing (TS/S), delegating clinical care to non-neurosurgeons, is ongoing in many hospital systems in which neurosurgeons are scarce. Although TS/S can increase access to treatment, it remains highly controversial. This survey investigated perceptions of neurosurgical TS/S to elucidate whether it is a permissible temporary solution to the global workforce deficit. METHODS: The survey was distributed to a convenience sample of individuals providing neurosurgical care. A digital survey link was distributed through electronic mailing lists of continental neurosurgical societies and various collectives, conference announcements, and social media platforms (July 2018-January 2019). Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and univariate regression of Likert Scale scores. RESULTS: Survey respondents represented 105 of 194 World Health Organization member countries (54.1%; 391 respondents, 162 from high-income countries and 229 from low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]). The most agreed on statement was that task sharing is preferred to task shifting. There was broad consensus that both task shifting and task sharing should require competency-based evaluation, standardized training endorsed by governing organizations, and maintenance of certification. When perspectives were stratified by income class, LMICs were significantly more likely to agree that task shifting is professionally disruptive to traditional training, task sharing should be a priority where human resources are scarce, and to call for additional TS/S regulation, such as certification and formal consultation with a neurosurgeon (in person or electronic/telemedicine). CONCLUSIONS: Both LMIC and high-income countries agreed that task sharing should be prioritized over task shifting and that additional recommendations and regulations could enhance care. These data invite future discussions on policy and training programs