Encouraging Entrepreneurship: Microfinance, Knowledge Support, and the Costs of Operating in Institutional Voids

This study focuses on the supplemented strategies of microfinance institutions (MFIs), in which the MFI offers nonfinancial services, such as entrepreneurship related knowledge, in addition to financial services to impoverished borrowers at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP). We examine two contextual factors–foreign direct investment (FDI) and loan defaults–to better understand the relationship between providing knowledge support to encourage entrepreneurship and costs of operating at the BoP for MFIs. In contexts where FDI is low and loan defaults are high, providing knowledge support to encourage entrepreneurship aggravates the MFI\u27s costs of operating at the BoP. However, in contexts where FDI is high and loan defaults are low, providing knowledge support to encourage entrepreneurship among impoverished borrowers does not aggravate the MFI\u27s costs of operating at the BoP. Hence, in emerging markets where governments welcome FDI and curb loan defaults, MFIs can viably support entrepreneurship among the poor

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Patient and Process Outcomes among Pediatric Patients Undergoing Appendectomy during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundCOVID-19 forced healthcare systems to make unprecedented changes in clinical care processes. The authors hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic adversely impacted timely access to care, perioperative processes, and clinical outcomes for pediatric patients undergoing primary appendectomy.MethodsA retrospective, international, multicenter study was conducted using matched cohorts within participating centers of the international PEdiatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative (PEACOC). Patients younger than 18 yr old were matched using age, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, and sex. The primary outcome was the difference in hospital length of stay of patients undergoing primary appendectomy during a 2-month period early in the COVID-19 pandemic (April to May 2020) compared with prepandemic (April to May 2019). Secondary outcomes included time to appendectomy and the incidence of complicated appendicitis.ResultsA total of 3,351 cases from 28 institutions were available with 1,684 cases in the prepandemic cohort matched to 1,618 in the pandemic cohort. Hospital length of stay was statistically significantly different between the two groups: 29 h (interquartile range: 18 to 79) in the pandemic cohort versus 28 h (interquartile range: 18 to 67) in the prepandemic cohort (adjusted coefficient, 1 [95% CI, 0.39 to 1.61]; P < 0.001), but this difference was small. Eight centers demonstrated a statistically significantly longer hospital length of stay in the pandemic period than in the prepandemic period, while 13 were shorter and 7 did not observe a statistically significant difference. During the pandemic period, there was a greater occurrence of complicated appendicitis, prepandemic 313 (18.6%) versus pandemic 389 (24.1%), an absolute difference of 5.5% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.59]; P = 0.003). Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing was associated with significantly longer time-to-appendectomy, 720 min (interquartile range: 430 to 1,112) with testing versus 414 min (interquartile range: 231 to 770) without testing, adjusted coefficient, 306 min (95% CI, 241 to 371; P < 0.001), and longer hospital length of stay, 31 h (interquartile range: 20 to 83) with testing versus 24 h (interquartile range: 14 to 68) without testing, adjusted coefficient, 7.0 (95% CI, 2.7 to 11.3; P = 0.002).ConclusionsFor children undergoing appendectomy, the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly impact hospital length of stay.Editor’s perspectiv

A survey of the global impact of COVID‐19 on the practice of pediatric anesthesia: A study from the pediatric anesthesia COVID‐19 Collaborative Group

BackgroundPediatric anesthesiology has been greatly impacted by COVID-19 in the delivery of care to patients and to the individual providers. With this study, we sought to survey pediatric centers and highlight the variations in care related to perioperative medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the availability of protective equipment, the practice of pediatric anesthesia, and economic impact.AimThe aim of the survey was to determine how COVID-19 directly impacted pediatric anesthesia practices during the study period.MethodsA survey concerning four major domains (testing, safety, clinical management/policy, economics) was developed. It was pilot tested for clarity and content by members of the Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative. The survey was administered by email to all Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative members on September 1, 2020. Respondents had six weeks to complete the survey and were instructed to answer the questions based on their institution's practice during September 1 - October 13, 2020.ResultsSixty-three institutions (100% response rate) participated in the COVID-19 Pediatric Anesthesia Survey. Forty-one hospitals (65%) were from the United States, and 35% included other countries. N95 masks were available to anesthesia teams at 91% of institutions (n = 57) (95% CI: 80%-96%). COVID-19 testing criteria of anesthesia staff and guidelines to return to work varied by institution. Structured simulation training aimed at improving COVID-19 safety and patient care occurred at 62% of institutions (n = 39). Pediatric anesthesiologists were economically affected by a reduction in their employer benefits and restriction of travel due to employer imposed quarantine regulations.ConclusionOur data indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the testing, safety, clinical management, and economics of pediatric anesthesia practice. Further investigation into the long-term consequences for the specialty is indicated