Peri-operative pulse oximetry in low-income countries: a cost–effectiveness analysis

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of pulse oximetry – compared with no peri-operative monitoring – during surgery in low-income countries. Methods: We considered the use of tabletop and portable, hand-held pulse oximeters among patients of any age undergoing major surgery in low-income countries. From earlier studies we obtained baseline mortality and the effectiveness of pulse oximeters to reduce mortality. We considered the direct costs of purchasing and maintaining pulse oximeters as well as the cost of supplementary oxygen used to treat hypoxic episodes identified by oximetry. Health benefits were measured in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted and benefits and costs were both discounted at 3% per year. We used recommended cost–effectiveness thresholds – both absolute and relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita – to assess if pulse oximetry is a cost–effective health intervention. To test the robustness of our results we performed sensitivity analyses. Findings: In 2013 prices, tabletop and hand-held oximeters were found to have annual costs of 310 and 95 United States dollars (US$), respectively. Assuming the two types of oximeter have identical effectiveness, a single oximeter used for 22 procedures per week averted 0.83 DALYs per annum. The tabletop and hand-held oximeters cost US$ 374 and US$115 per DALY averted, respectively. For any country with a GDP per capita above US$ 677 the hand-held oximeter was found to be cost–effective if it prevented just 1.7% of anaesthetic-related deaths or 0.3% of peri-operative mortality. Conclusion: Pulse oximetry is a cost–effective intervention for low-income settings

Audit-identified avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths in low resource settings: a systematic review

Background: Audits provide a rational framework for quality improvement by systematically assessing clinical practices against accepted standards with the aim to develop recommendations and interventions that target modifiable deficiencies in care. Most childbirth-associated mortality audits in developing countries are focused on a single facility and, up to now, the avoidable factors in maternal and perinatal deaths cataloged in these reports have not been pooled and analyzed. We sought to identity the most frequent avoidable factors in childbirth-related deaths globally through a systematic review of all published mortality audits in low and lower-middle income countries. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published literature from 1965 to November 2011 in Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, POPLINE, LILACS and African Index Medicus. Inclusion criteria were audits from low and lower-middle income countries that identified at least one avoidable factor in maternal or perinatal mortality. Each study included in the analysis was assigned a quality score using a previously published instrument. A meta-analysis was performed for each avoidable factor taking into account the sample sizes and quality score from each individual audit. The study was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Results: Thirty-nine studies comprising 44 datasets and a total of 6,205 audited deaths met inclusion criteria. The analysis yielded 42 different avoidable factors, which fell into four categories: health worker-oriented factors, patient-oriented factors, transport/referral factors, and administrative/supply factors. The top three factors by attributable deaths were substandard care by a health worker, patient delay, and deficiencies in blood transfusion capacity (accounting for 688, 665, and 634 deaths attributable, respectively). Health worker-oriented factors accounted for two-thirds of the avoidable factors identified. Conclusions: Audits provide insight into where systematic deficiencies in clinical care occur and can therefore provide crucial direction for the targeting of interventions to mitigate or eliminate health system failures. Given that the main causes of maternal and perinatal deaths are generally consistent across low resource settings, the specific avoidable factors identified in this review can help to inform the rational design of health systems with the aim of achieving continued progress towards Millennium Development Goals Four and Five. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-280) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Perspectives in quality: designing the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

The World Health Organization's Patient Safety Programme created an initiative to improve the safety of surgery around the world. In order to accomplish this goal the programme team developed a checklist with items that could and, if at all possible, should be practised in all settings where surgery takes place. There is little guidance in the literature regarding methods for creating a medical checklist. The airline industry, however, has more than 70 years of experience in developing and using checklists. The authors of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist drew lessons from the aviation experience to create a safety tool that supports essential clinical practice. In order to inform the methodology for development of future checklists in health care, we review how we applied lessons learned from the aviation experience in checklist development to the development of the Surgical Safety Checklist and also discuss the differences that exist between aviation and medicine that impact the use of checklists in health car

Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention

Introduction: Ensuring that patients receive care that is consistent with their goals and values is a critical component of high-quality care. This article describes the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent, structured communication intervention. Methods and analysis Patients with advanced, incurable cancer and life expectancy of <12 months will participate together with their surrogate. Clinicians are enrolled and randomised either to usual care or the intervention. The Serious Illness Care Program is a multicomponent, structured communication intervention designed to identify patients, train clinicians to use a structured guide for advanced care planning discussion with patients, ‘trigger’ clinicians to have conversations, prepare patients and families for the conversation, and document outcomes of the discussion in a structured format in the electronic medical record. Clinician satisfaction with the intervention, confidence and attitudes will be assessed before and after the intervention. Self-report data will be collected from patients and surrogates approximately every 2 months up to 2 years or until the patient's death; patient medical records will be examined at the close of the study. Analyses will examine the impact of the intervention on the patient receipt of goal-concordant care, and peacefulness at the end of life. Secondary outcomes include patient anxiety, depression, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, quality of communication, and quality of dying and death. Key process measures include frequency, timing and quality of documented conversations. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Institutional Review Board. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number Protocol identifier NCT01786811; Pre-results

Peri-operative pulse oximetry in low-income countries : a cost–effectiveness analysis

he pulse oximeter is a non-invasive medical device that monitors oxygen saturation and pulsation. When used continuously during surgery, it can provide early warning of hypoxia, hypovolaemia and impending cardiac arrest. Since oximetry can warn of problems such as misplaced endotracheal tubes – which can readily be rectified – the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists recommends its routine use for every patient undergoing anaesthesia in the world.1,2 The World Health Organization (WHO) includes pulse oximetry as a component of its Surgical Safety Checklist, which is recommended for use in every operating theatre.1 However, it has recently been estimated that pulse oximetry is unavailable in 51–70% of operating theatres in low-income countries,3 partly because of the high purchase cost of a standard commercial tabletop pulse oximeter – approximately 1000 United States dollars (US$).4 The Lifebox oximetry project, which currently operates alongside the WHO Safe Surgery Saves Lives initiative, provides a hand-held pulse oximeter for low- and middle-income countries that costs US$ 250.4 However, even this smaller sum is a considerable investment for resource-constrained settings. Furthermore, because no evidence of the cost–effectiveness of pulse oximetry for peri-operative monitoring in low-income countries has yet been published, it is not clear how oximetry should be prioritized among the many cost–effective interventions available.5 In this paper, we conducted a cost–effectiveness analysis of pulse oximetry – compared with no peri-operative monitoring – for patients undergoing surgery in low-income countries. This study is based on a synthesis of data from previously published studies from a large number of different countries. While the group of low-income countries is heterogeneous, the analysis presented here is readily adaptable to specific national contexts