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

Neurosurgeons’ experiences of conducting and disseminating clinical research in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden of neurotrauma. However, most of the research published in scientific journals originates from high-income countries, suggesting those in LMICs are either not engaging in research or are not publishing it. Evidence originating in high-income countries may not be generalisable to LMICs; therefore, it is important to nurture research capacity in LMICs so that a relevant evidence base can be developed. However, little is published about specific challenges or contextual issues relevant to increasing research activity of neurosurgeons in LMICs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons’ experiences of, aspirations for and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm using focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of neurosurgeons from LMICs. First, we will conduct asynchronous online focus groups with 36 neurosurgeons to broadly explore issues relevant to the study aim. Second, we will select 20 participants for follow-up semistructured interviews to explore concepts in more depth and detail than could be achieved in the focus group. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis will be conducted following Braun and Clarke’s six stages and will be supported by NVIVO software.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee reviewed this study and provided a favourable opinion in January 2020 (REF PRE.2020.006). Participants will provide informed consent, be able to withdraw at any time and will have their contributions kept confidential. The findings of the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications.</jats:sec

Marburg Virus Outbreak in Equatorial Guinea: Need for Speed

The co-existence of deadly viral pandemics can be considered a nightmare for public health authorities. The surge of a Marburg virus disease (MVD) outbreak in Africa at a time when the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic is partially controlled with its limited resources is an urgent call for concern. Over the past decades, several bouts of MVD outbreaks have occurred in Africa with an alarming case fatality rate. Despite this, little has been done to end its recurrence, and affected countries essentially depend on preventative rather than curative measures of management. The recent outbreak of MVD declared by the health officials of Equatorial Guinea, causing several deaths in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, signals the need for speed in the establishment and the implementation of appropriate health policies and health system strategies to contain, destroy, and prevent the spread of this deadly virus to other neighboring countries

Neurosurgeons' experiences of conducting and disseminating clinical research in low-income and middle-income countries: a reflexive thematic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Low-income and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are increasing investment in research and development, yet there remains a paucity of neurotrauma research published by those in LMICs. The aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons' experiences of, aspirations for, and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs. DESIGN: This was a two-stage inductive qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm. This study committed to an interpretivist way of knowing (epistemology), and considered reality subjective and multiple (ontology). Data collection used online methods and included a web-based survey tool for demographic data, an asynchronous online focus group and follow-up semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis supported by NVivo V.12. SETTING: LMICs. PARTICIPANTS: In April-July 2020, 26 neurosurgeons from 11 LMICs participated in this study (n=24 in the focus groups, n=20 in follow-up interviews). RESULTS: The analysis gave rise to five themes: The local landscape; creating capacity; reach and impact; collaborative inquiry; growth and sustainability. Each theme contained an inhibitor and stimulus to neurosurgeons conducting and disseminating clinical research, interpreted as 'the neurosurgical research potential in LMICs'. Mentorship, education, infrastructure, impact and engagement were identified as specific accelerators. Whereas lack of generalisability, absence of dissemination and dissemination without peer review may desensitise the impact of research conducted by neurosurgeons. CONCLUSION: The geographical, political and population complexities make research endeavour challenging for neurosurgeons in LMICs. Yet in spite of, and because of, these complexities LMICs provide rich opportunities to advance global neurosurgery. More studies are required to evaluate the specific effects of accelerators of research conducted by neurosurgeons and to understand the effects of desensitisers on high-quality, high-impact clinical research

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

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

Acute subdural hematoma in a footballer following a head-ball of the ball: a rare neurosurgical complication

Abstract Acute subdural hematoma is a frequent complication of high-energy head injuries. Herein, we report an unusual case of this condition that occurred in a young footballer after he head-balled a football. A 37-year-old footballer, during a match, jumped and gave a head shot on the ball. Upon landing, he felt severe headaches forcing him out of the stadium. About 4 h later, he lost consciousness and went into a coma. After resuscitation, he remained clouded, with cephalalgia and had left hemiparesis. The performed brain scan revealed an acute right fronto-parietal subdural hematoma and the patient benefited from craniotomy surgery in our department with simple postoperative suites. The authors, after a brief discussion of the biomechanics of this serious condition, ask all the actors of this very popular sport, to consider the possibility of occurrence of this condition in players

Neurosurgeons’ experiences of conducting and disseminating clinical research in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study protocol

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden of neurotrauma. However, most of the research published in scientific journals originates from high-income countries, suggesting those in LMICs are either not engaging in research or are not publishing it. Evidence originating in high-income countries may not be generalisable to LMICs; therefore, it is important to nurture research capacity in LMICs so that a relevant evidence base can be developed. However, little is published about specific challenges or contextual issues relevant to increasing research activity of neurosurgeons in LMICs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to understand neurosurgeons’ experiences of, aspirations for and ability to conduct and disseminate clinical research in LMICs.Methods and analysisThis is a pragmatic qualitative study situated within the naturalistic paradigm using focus groups and interviews with a purposive sample of neurosurgeons from LMICs. First, we will conduct asynchronous online focus groups with 36 neurosurgeons to broadly explore issues relevant to the study aim. Second, we will select 20 participants for follow-up semistructured interviews to explore concepts in more depth and detail than could be achieved in the focus group. Interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis will be conducted following Braun and Clarke’s six stages and will be supported by NVIVO software.Ethics and disseminationThe University of Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee reviewed this study and provided a favourable opinion in January 2020 (REF PRE.2020.006). Participants will provide informed consent, be able to withdraw at any time and will have their contributions kept confidential. The findings of the study will be shared with relevant stakeholders and disseminated in conference presentations and journal publications.</jats:sec