Hadler Rachel A, Chawla Sagar, Stewart Barclay T, McCunn Maureen C, Kushner Adam L
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Mayo Clinic Medical School, Rochester, MN, USA.
World J Surg. 2016 May;40(5):1025-33. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3430-4.
Globally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to identify patterns of deficits and provide useful targets for advocacy and intervention.
A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar identified reports that documented anesthesia care capacity from LMICs. When multiple assessments from one country were identified, only the study with the most facilities assessed was included. Patterns of availability or deficit were described.
We identified 22 LMICs (15 low- and 8 middle-income countries) with anesthesia care capacity assessments (614 facilities assessed). Anesthesia care resources were often unavailable, including relatively low-cost ones (e.g., oxygen and airway supplies). Capacity varied markedly between and within countries, regardless of the national income. The availability of fundamental resources for safe anesthesia, such as airway supplies and functional pulse oximeters, was often not reported (72 and 36 % of hospitals assessed, respectively). Anesthesia machines and the capability to perform general anesthesia were unavailable in 43 % (132/307 hospitals) and 56 % (202/361) of hospitals, respectively.
We identified a pattern of critical deficiencies in anesthesia care capacity in LMICs, including some low-cost, high-value added resources. The global health community should advocate for improvements in anesthesia care capacity and the potential benefits of doing so to health system planners. In addition, better quality data on anesthesia care capacity can improve advocacy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of changes over time and the impact of capacity improvement interventions.
全球估计有20亿人无法获得外科手术和麻醉护理服务。我们试图汇总低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)麻醉护理能力评估的结果,以确定短缺模式,并为宣传和干预提供有用的目标。
对PubMed、Cochrane系统评价数据库和谷歌学术进行系统综述,以确定记录LMICs麻醉护理能力的报告。当从一个国家识别出多项评估时,仅纳入评估设施最多的研究。描述了可用性或短缺模式。
我们识别出22个进行了麻醉护理能力评估的LMICs(15个低收入国家和8个中等收入国家)(共评估了614个设施)。麻醉护理资源常常无法获得,包括成本相对较低的资源(如氧气和气道用品)。无论国民收入如何,各国之间以及国家内部的能力差异都很显著。安全麻醉所需的基本资源,如气道用品和功能正常的脉搏血氧仪的可用性,往往未被报告(分别占评估医院的72%和36%)。43%(132/307家医院)的医院没有麻醉机,56%(202/361)的医院没有进行全身麻醉的能力。
我们发现LMICs在麻醉护理能力方面存在严重短缺模式,包括一些低成本、高附加值的资源。全球卫生界应倡导提高麻醉护理能力,并向卫生系统规划者宣传这样做的潜在益处。此外,关于麻醉护理能力的质量更好的数据可以改善宣传工作,以及对随时间变化的监测和评估,以及能力提升干预措施的影响。