Background The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery established the Three Delays framework, categorising delays in accessing timely surgical care into delays in seeking care (First Delay), reaching care (Second Delay), and receiving care (Third Delay). Globally, knowledge gaps regarding delays for fracture care, and the lack of large prospective studies informed the rationale for our international observational study. We investigated delays in hospital admission as a surrogate for accessing timely fracture care and explored factors associated with delayed hospital admission. MethodsIn this prospective observational substudy of the ongoing International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care (INORMUS), we enrolled patients with fracture across 49 hospitals in 18 low-income and middle-income countries, categorised into the regions of China, Africa, India, south and east Asia, and Latin America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had been admitted to a hospital within 3 months of sustaining an orthopaedic trauma. We collected demographic injury data and time to hospital admission. Our primary outcome was the number of patients with open and closed fractures who were delayed in their admission to a treating hospital. Delays for patients with open fractures were defined as being more than 2 h from the time of injury (in accordance with the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery) and for those with closed fractures as being a delay of more than 24 h. Secondary outcomes were reasons for delay for all patients with either open or closed fractures who were delayed for more than 24 h. We did logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors of delays of more than 2 h in patients with open fractures and delays of more than 24 h in patients with closed fractures. Logistic regressions were adjusted for region, age, employment, urban living, health insurance, interfacility referral, method of transportation, number of fractures, mechanism of injury, and fracture location. We further calculated adjusted relative risk (RR) from adjusted odds ratios, adjusted for the same variables. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150980, and is ongoing. Findings Between April 3, 2014, and May 10, 2019, we enrolled 31 255 patients with fractures, with a median age of 45 years (IQR 31-62), of whom 19 937 (63•8%) were men, and 14 524 (46•5%) had lower limb fractures, making them the most common fractures. Of 5256 patients with open fractures, 3778 (71•9%) were not admitted to hospital within 2 h. Of 25 999 patients with closed fractures, 7141 (27•5%) were delayed by more than 24 h. Of all regions, Latin America had the greatest proportions of patients with delays (173 [88•7%] of 195 patients with open fractures; 426 [44•7%] of 952 with closed fractures). Among patients delayed by more than 24 h, the most common reason for delays were interfacility referrals (3755 [47•7%] of 7875) and Third Delays (cumulatively interfacility referral and delay in emergency department: 3974 [50•5%]), while Second Delays ...

BackgroundClub foot is a common congenital deformity affecting 150 000–200 000 children every year. Untreated patients end up walking on the side or back of the affected foot, with severe social and economic consequences. Club foot is highly treatable by the Ponseti method, a non-invasive technique that has been described as highly suitable for use in resource-limited settings. To date, there has been no evaluation of its cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as the cost of averting one disability-adjusted life year (DALY), a composite measure of the impact of premature death and disability. In this study, we aimed to calculate the average cost-effectiveness ratio of the Ponseti method for correcting club foot in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsUsing data from 12 sub-Saharan African countries provided by the international non-profit organisation CURE Clubfoot, which implements several Ponseti treatment programmes around the world, we estimated the average cost of the point-of-care treatment for club foot in these countries. We divided the cost of treatment with the average number of DALYs that can be averted by the Ponseti treatment, assuming treatment is successful in 90% of patients.ResultsWe found the average cost of the Ponseti treatment to be US$167 per patient. The average number of DALYs averted was 7.42, yielding a cost-effectiveness ratio of US$22.46 per DALY averted. To test the robustness of our calculation different variables were used and these yielded a cost range of US$5.28–29.75. This is less than a tenth of the cost of many other treatment modalities used in resource-poor settings today.ConclusionsThe Ponseti method for the treatment of club foot is cost-effective and practical in a low-income country setting. These findings could be used to raise the priority for implementing Ponseti treatment in areas where patients are still lacking access to the life-changing intervention.

Background and purpose —Neglected clubfoot deformity is a major cause of disability in low-income countries. Most children with clubfoot have little access to treatment in these countries, and they are often inadequately treated. We evaluated the effectiveness of Ponseti’s technique in neglected clubfoot in children in a rural setting in Ethiopia.Patients and methods —A prospective study was conducted from June 2007 through July 2010. 22 consecutive children aged 2–10 years (32 feet) with neglected clubfoot were treated by the Ponseti method. The deformity was assessed using the Pirani scoring system. The average follow-up time was 3 years.Results —A plantigrade functional foot was obtained in all patients by Ponseti casting and limited surgical intervention. 2 patients (4 feet) had recurrent deformity. They required re-manipulation and re-tenotomy of the Achilles tendon and 1 other patient required tibialis anterior transfer for dynamic supination deformity of the foot.Interpretation —This study shows that the Ponseti method with some additional surgery can be used successfully as the primary treatment in neglected clubfoot, and that it minimizes the need for extensive corrective surgery.

BackgroundClubfoot is a common congenital musculoskeletal disorder that causes mobility impairment. There is a lack of trained mid-level personnel to provide clubfoot treatment in Africa and there is no standard training course. This prospective study describes the collaborative and participatory approach to the development of a training course for the treatment of clubfoot in children in resource constrained settings.MethodsWe used a systems approach to evaluate the development of the training course.Inputs: The research strategy included a review of context and available training materials, and the collection of data on current training practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven expert clubfoot trainers. A survey of 32 international and regional trainers was undertaken to inform practical issues. The data were used to develop a framework for training with advice from two technical groups, consisting of regional and international stakeholders and experts.Process: A consensus approach was undertaken during workshops, meetings and the sharing of documents. The design process for the training materials took twenty-four months and was iterative. The training materials were piloted nine times between September 2015 and February 2017. Processes and materials were reviewed and adapted according to feedback after each pilot.ResultsFifty-one regional trainers from Africa (18 countries), 21 international experts (11 countries), 113 local providers of clubfoot treatment (Ethiopia, Rwanda and Kenya) and local organising teams were involved in developing the curriculum and pilot testing. The diversity of the two technical advisory groups allowed a wide range of contributions to the collaboration.Output: The resulting curriculum and content comprised a two day basic training and a two day advanced course. The basic course utilised adult learning techniques for training novice providers in the treatment of idiopathic clubfoot in children under two years old. The advanced course builds on these principles.ConclusionFormative research that included mixed methods (both qualitative and quantitative) was important in the development of an appropriate training course. The process documentation from this study provides useful information to assist planning of medical training programmes and may serve as a model for the development of other courses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1269-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries.