11 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Unilateral Cleft Lip and Nasal Repair: Techniques and Principles
The Mashhad University of Medical Sciences and the Sheikh Hospital in Mashhad sponsored a Cleft Lip and Palate Workshop 30 April – 1 May 2009. During the Workshop, 6 surgical cases were performed and televised live to the audience attending the conference. Two of those cases were unilateral cleft lip repairs. The surgical technique used to repair these patients by the primary author (JGM) is a hybrid technique. It has evolved over the last decade as a result of prior surgical literature as well as first hand observation of various surgical colleagues. The following manuscript describes the surgical technique used at the Cleft Workshop in a step-wise or atlas-like fashion. The technique portion of the paper describes the repair of the unilateral cleft lip and nasal deformity in roughly the order the first author typically performs the procedure. More importantly, the final section of the paper details the principles that form the foundation for the techniques described
Recommended from our members
An Opportunity for Diagonal Development in Global Surgery: Cleft Lip and Palate Care in Resource-Limited Settings
Global cleft surgery missions have provided much-needed care to millions of poor patients worldwide. Still, surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries is generally inadequate. Through surgical missions, global cleft care has largely ascribed to a vertical model of healthcare delivery, which is disease specific, and tends to deliver services parallel to, but not necessarily within, the local healthcare system. The vertical model has been used to address infectious diseases as well as humanitarian emergencies. By contrast, a horizontal model for healthcare delivery tends to focus on long-term investments in public health infrastructure and human capital and has less often been implemented by humanitarian groups for a variety of reasons. As surgical care is an integral component of basic healthcare, the plastic surgery community must challenge itself to address the burden of specific disease entities, such as cleft lip and palate, in a way that sustainably expands and enriches global surgical care as a whole. In this paper, we describe a diagonal care delivery model, whereby cleft missions can enrich surgical capacity through integration into sustainable, local care delivery systems. Furthermore, we examine the applications of diagonal development to cleft care specifically and global surgical care more broadly
Recommended from our members
Assessing the Brazilian surgical system with six surgical indicators: a descriptive and modelling study
Background: Brazil boasts a health scheme that aspires to provide universal coverage, but its surgical system has rarely been analyzed. In an effort to strengthen surgical systems worldwide, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed collection of six standardized indicators: two-hour access to surgery, surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate (POMR), and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. This study aims to characterize the Brazilian surgical health system with these newly devised indicators while gaining understanding on the complexity of the indicators themselves.
Methods: Using Brazil’s national healthcare database, commonly reported healthcare variables were used to calculate or simulate the six surgical indicators. Access to surgery was calculated using hospital locations, surgical workforce density was calculated using locations of surgeons, anesthesiologists and obstetricians (SAO), and surgical volume and POMR were identified with surgical procedure codes. The rates of protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure were modelled using cost of inpatient hospitalization and a gamma distribution of incomes based on GINI and GDP/capita.
Findings: In 2014, SAO density is 34·7/100,000 population, surgical volume is 4,433 procedures/100,000 people and POMR is 1·71%. 79·4% of surgical patients are protected against impoverishing expenditure and 84·6% were protected against catastrophic expenditure due to surgery each year. Two-hour access to surgery was not able to be calculated from national health data, but a proxy measure suggested that 97·2% of the population has two-hour access to a hospital that may be able to provide surgery. Geographic disparities were seen in all indicators.
Interpretation: Brazil‘s public surgical system meets several key benchmarks. Geographic disparities, however, are substantial and raise concerns of equity. Policies should focus on stimulating appropriate geographic allocation of the surgical workforce. In some cases, where benchmarks for each indicator are met, supplemental analysis can further inform our understanding of health systems. This measured and systematic evaluation of surgical systems should be encouraged for all nations seeking to better understand their surgical systems.
Funding: There was no funding for this study
Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report
Background Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. Methods and findings The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees. Conclusions To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.publishedVersio
Recommended from our members
Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to implement and evaluate national surgical planning
The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery defined six surgical indicators and a framework for a National Surgical Plan that aimed to incorporate surgical care as a part of global public health. Multiple countries have since begun national surgical planning; each face unique challenges in doing so. Implementation science can be utilized to more systematically explain this heterogeneous process, guide implementation efforts, and ultimately evaluate progress. We describe our intervention using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. This framework requires identifying characteristics of the intervention, the individuals involved, the inner and outer setting of the intervention and, finally, describing implementation processes. By hosting a consultative symposium with clinicians and policy makers from around the world, we are able to specify key aspects of each element of this framework. We define our intervention as the incorporation of surgical care into public health planning, identify local champions as the key individuals involved, and describe elements of the inner and outer setting. Ultimately we describe a top-down and bottom-up model that are distinct implementation processes. With the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research we are able to identify specific strategic models that can be used by implementers in various settings. While the integration of surgical care into public health throughout the world may seem like an insurmountable challenge, this work adds to a growing effort that seeks to find a way forward
Recommended from our members
The Impact of Natural Disaster on Pediatric Surgical Delivery: A Review of Haiti Six Months Before and After the 2010 Earthquake
Little is known about pediatric surgical disease in resource-poor countries. This study documents the surgical care of children in central Haiti and demonstrates the influence of the 2010 earthquake on pediatric surgical delivery. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of operations performed at Partners in Health/Zanmi Lasante hospitals in central Haiti. Results. Of 2,057 operations performed prior to the earthquake, 423 were pediatric (20.6%). Congenital anomalies were the most common operative indication (159/423 opera- tions; 33.5%). Pediatric surgical volume increased signi cantly a er the earthquake, with524 Pediatric surgical care in Haiti 670 operations performed (23.0% post-earthquake v. 20.6% pre-earthquake, p5.03). Trauma and burns became the most common surgical diagnoses a er the disaster, and operations for non-traumatic conditions decreased signi cantly (p,.01). Conclusion. Congenital anomalies represent a signi cant proportion of baseline surgical need in Haiti. A natural disaster can change the nature of pediatric surgical practice by signi cantly increasing demand for operative trauma care for months afterward
Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting:An Utstein consensus report
Background
Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally.
Methods and findings
The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure.
A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees.
Conclusions
To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.publishedVersio
Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report
Background
Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally.
Methods and findings
The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure.
A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees.
Conclusions
To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies
Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report
Background
Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define—for the first time—the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally.
Methods and findings
The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure.
A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries—who only made up 21% of the total attendees.
Conclusions
To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators—at the basic level—should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies