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

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

Gender differences in perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards neurosurgery: a german nationwide survey

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in gender equity, the paucity of women neurosurgeons remains. In Germany, women accounted for only 24% of the specialists who completed their neurosurgical training in 2019. We sought to explore the perceptions of medical students in Germany towards a neurosurgical career, focusing on gender-specific differences. METHODS: A digital 26-item questionnaire with a Likert 4-point scale and open-ended questions was distributed to the German Medical School student bodies. Data was analyzed to determine statistically significant intra-group variability between women and men. RESULTS: 210 medical students participated in the survey. Women and men were equally interested in brain pathologies (38% vs. 47%, strongly agreed), whereas interest in neurosurgery was significantly greater in men (12% vs. 26%, strongly agreed). Men were less likely to believe that women neurosurgery residents would face inequality at work. They were also less likely to support a gender quota in neurosurgery. Yet, both women and men were convinced that a rise in the number of women would positively impact the field. No gender-dependency was seen in students' strive for success and prestige. Men felt discouraged from pursuing neurosurgery because they feared an unpleasant work environment whereas women were concerned about neurosurgery not being family-friendly. Regardless of gender, the greatest factor deterring students from neurosurgery was poor work-life balance. CONCLUSION: Awareness must be raised concerning gender inequity and discrimination in our specialty. A multifaceted approach is imperative to develop neurosurgery into a profession where gender no longer hinders access to training and success in the field

Neurotrauma clinicians’ perspectives on the contextual challenges associated with traumatic brain injury follow up in low-income and middle-income countries: A reflexive thematic analysis

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major global health issue, but low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face the greatest burden. Significant differences in neurotrauma outcomes are recognised between LMICs and high-income countries. However, outcome data is not consistently nor reliably recorded in either setting, thus the true burden of TBI cannot be accurately quantified. To explore the specific contextual challenges of, and possible solutions to improve, long-term follow-up following TBI in low-resource settings. Methods: A cross-sectional, pragmatic qualitative study, that considered knowledge subjective and reality multiple (i.e. situated within the naturalistic paradigm). Data collection utilised semi-structured interviews, by videoconference and asynchronous e-mail. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s six-stage Reflexive Thematic Analysis. 18 neurosurgeons from 13 countries participated in this study, and data analysis gave rise to five themes: Clinical Context: What must we understand?; Perspectives and Definitions: What are we talking about?; Ownership and Beneficiaries: Why do we do it?; Lost to Follow-up: Who misses out and why?; Processes and Procedures: What do we do, or what might we do? The collection of long-term outcome data plays an imperative role in reducing the global burden of neurotrauma. Therefore, this was an exploratory study that examined the contextual challenges associated with long-term follow-up in LMICs. Where technology can contribute to improved neurotrauma surveillance and remote assessment, these must be implemented in a manner that improves patient outcomes, reduces clinical burden on physicians, and does not surpass the comprehension, capabilities, or financial means of the end user. Future research is recommended to investigate patient and family perspectives, the impact on clinical care teams, and the full economic implications of new technologies for follow-up

The World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Young Neurosurgeons Survey (Part II): Barriers to Professional Development and Service Delivery in Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Strengthening health systems requires attention to workforce, training needs, and barriers to service delivery. The World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies Young Neurosurgeons Committee survey sought to identify challenges for residents, fellows, and consultants within 10 years of training. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to various neurosurgical societies, personal contacts, and social media platforms (April-November 2018). Responses were grouped by World Bank income classification into high-income countries (HICs), upper middle-income countries (UMICs), low-middle-income countries (LMICs), and low-income countries (LICs). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 953 individuals completed the survey. For service delivery, the limited number of trained neurosurgeons was seen as a barrier for 12.5%, 29.8%, 69.2%, and 23.9% of respondents from HICs, UMICs, LMICs, and LICs, respectively (P < 0.0001). The most reported personal challenge was the lack of opportunities for research (HICs, 34.6%; UMICs, 57.5%; LMICs, 61.6%; and LICs, 61.5%; P = 0.03). Other differences by income class included limited access to advice from experienced/senior colleagues (P < 0.001), neurosurgical journals (P < 0.0001), and textbooks (P = 0.02). Assessing how the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies could best help young neurosurgeons, the most frequent requests (n = 953; 1673 requests) were research (n = 384), education (n = 296), and subspecialty/fellowship training (n = 232). Skills courses and access to cadaver dissection laboratories were also heavily requested. CONCLUSIONS: Young neurosurgeons perceived that additional neurosurgeons are needed globally, especially in LICs and LMICs, and primarily requested additional resources for research and subspecialty training

Do neurosurgeons follow the guidelines? A world-based survey on severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two european surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines. METHODS: a web-based survey was spread through the global Neuro foundation, different neurosurgical societies, and social media. RESULTS: a total of 803 neurosurgeons participated: 70.4 from UHICs and 29.6% from LMICs. Hypertonic was administered as an early measure by the 73% and 65% of the responders in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P=0.016). an invasive intracranial pressure monitoring was recommended by the 66% and 58% of the neurosurgeons in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P<0.001). antiseizure drugs (P<0.001) were given most frequently in LMICs as, against recommendations, steroids (87% vs. 61% and 86% vs. 81%, respectively). in the LMICs both the evacuation of the contusion and decompressive craniectomy were performed earlier than in UHICs (30% vs. 17% with P<0.001 and 44% vs. 28% with P=0.006, respectively). In the LMICs, the head CT control was performed mostly between 12 and 24 hours from the first imaging (38% vs. 23%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current Guidelines on TBI do not always fit to both the resources and circumstances in different countries. Future research and clinical practice guidelines should reflect the greater relevance of TBI in low resource settings

Do neurosurgeons follow the guidelines? A world-based survey on severe traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two european surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines. METHODS: a web-based survey was spread through the global Neuro foundation, different neurosurgical societies, and social media. RESULTS: a total of 803 neurosurgeons participated: 70.4 from UHICs and 29.6% from LMICs. Hypertonic was administered as an early measure by the 73% and 65% of the responders in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P=0.016). an invasive intracranial pressure monitoring was recommended by the 66% and 58% of the neurosurgeons in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P<0.001). antiseizure drugs (P<0.001) were given most frequently in LMICs as, against recommendations, steroids (87% vs. 61% and 86% vs. 81%, respectively). in the LMICs both the evacuation of the contusion and decompressive craniectomy were performed earlier than in UHICs (30% vs. 17% with P<0.001 and 44% vs. 28% with P=0.006, respectively). In the LMICs, the head CT control was performed mostly between 12 and 24 hours from the first imaging (38% vs. 23%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current Guidelines on TBI do not always fit to both the resources and circumstances in different countries. Future research and clinical practice guidelines should reflect the greater relevance of TBI in low resource settings