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 ...

No abstract

IntroductionThere have been worries concerning the preparedness and capacity of the counties to take over health care services. As the current medical students are going into this new system, we sought their opinions on the issue of devolution. The objective is to assess beliefs and attitudes of medical students towards devolution of healthcare services.MethodsA cross sectional survey was conducted at University of Nairobi medical school during the period of February-May 2014. Though a calculated random sample of 384 medical students was powerful enough to fulfill our objectives, all eligible medical students were invited by email to fill in a semi structured online questionnaire. Computed results from Google sheets were reported in frequencies and percentages.ResultsData was collected from 191 respondents with majority of them in their clinical years (levels 3, 4 and 5) of study. More participants considered working in private/ mission health institution (40%) after graduating as compared to public or non health institution (30%). The media provided most of information concerning devolution (77%). Few respondents reported using government documents (36%) or public forums (24%) to get information on healthcare devolution. While most of the respondents were of the opinion that health information system (68%), health finance (63%), procurement of medical products (54%), leadership and governance (73) should be devolved, only 18% wanted health personnel to be devolved. Most of the opinions on healthcare devolution were not in agreement with the goal of devolution: more than 50% thought the process would not result in improved efficiency, resource allocation, disease control programs or maintenance of infrastructure.ConclusionDespite the envisioned benefits of healthcare devolution, there is a low opinion among medical trainees concerning these reforms and their implementation. Nevertheless, it is early to speculate whether such viewpoints will be carried to the future once teething problems are dealt with.

No abstract