SummaryDeaths following surgery are the third largest contributor to deaths globally, and in Africa are twice the global average. There is a need for a peri‐operative research agenda to ensure co‐ordinated, collaborative research efforts across Africa in order to decrease peri‐operative mortality. The objective was to determine the top 10 research priorities for peri‐operative research in Africa. A Delphi technique was used to establish consensus on the top research priorities. The top 10 research priorities identified were (1) Develop training standards for peri‐operative healthcare providers (surgical, anaesthesia and nursing) in Africa; (2) Develop minimum provision of care standards for peri‐operative healthcare providers (surgical, anaesthesia and nursing) in Africa; (3) Early identification and management of mothers at risk from peripartum haemorrhage in the peri‐operative period; (4) The role of communication and teamwork between surgical, anaesthetic, nursing and other teams involved in peri‐operative care; (5) A facility audit/African World Health Organization situational analysis tool audit to assess emergency and essential surgical care, which includes anaesthetic equipment available and level of training and knowledge of peri‐operative healthcare providers (surgeons, anaesthetists and nurses); (6) Establishing evidence‐based practice guidelines for peri‐operative physicians in Africa; (7) Economic analysis of strategies to finance access to surgery in Africa; (8) Establishment of a minimum dataset surgical registry; (9) A quality improvement programme to improve implementation of the surgical safety checklist; and (10) Peri‐operative outcomes associated with emergency surgery. These peri‐operative research priorities provide the structure for an intermediate‐term research agenda to improve peri‐operative outcomes across Africa.

Summary Background Risk of mortality following surgery in patients across Africa is twice as high as the global average. Most of these deaths occur on hospital wards after the surgery itself. We aimed to assess whether enhanced postoperative surveillance of adult surgical patients at high risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality in Africa could reduce 30-day in-hospital mortality. Methods We did a two-arm, open-label, cluster-randomised trial of hospitals (clusters) across Africa. Hospitals were eligible if they provided surgery with an overnight postoperative admission. Hospitals were randomly assigned through minimisation in recruitment blocks (1:1) to provide patients with either a package of enhanced postoperative surveillance interventions (admitting the patient to higher care ward, increasing the frequency of postoperative nursing observations, assigning the patient to a bed in view of the nursing station, allowing family members to stay in the ward, and placing a postoperative surveillance guide at the bedside) for those at high risk (ie, with African Surgical Outcomes Study Surgical Risk Calculator scores ≥10) and usual care for those at low risk (intervention group), or for all patients to receive usual postoperative care (control group). Health-care providers and participants were not masked, but data assessors were. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality of patients at low and high risk, measured at the participant level. All analyses were done as allocated (by cluster) in all patients with available data. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03853824 . Findings Between May 3, 2019, and July 27, 2020, 594 eligible hospitals indicated a desire to participate across 33 African countries; 332 (56%) were able to recruit participants and were included in analyses. We allocated 160 hospitals (13 275 patients) to provide enhanced postoperative surveillance and 172 hospitals (15 617 patients) to provide standard care. The mean age of participants was 37·1 years (SD 15·5) and 20 039 (69·4%) of 28 892 patients were women. 30-day in-hospital mortality occurred in 169 (1·3%) of 12 970 patients with mortality data in the intervention group and in 193 (1·3%) of 15 242 patients with mortality data in the control group (relative risk 0·96, 95% CI 0·69–1·33; p=0·79). 45 (0·2%) of 22 031 patients at low risk and 309 (5·6%) of 5500 patients at high risk died. No harms associated with either intervention were reported. Interpretation This intervention package did not decrease 30-day in-hospital mortality among surgical patients in Africa at high risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality. Further research is needed to develop interventions that prevent death from surgical complications in resource-limited hospitals across Africa. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Federati...

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for essential surgical services in Africa. Limited anesthesia services are a contributing factor. Nonphysician anesthesia providers are utilized to assist with providing anesthesia and procedural sedation to make essential surgeries available. There is a paucity of data on outcomes following procedural sedation for surgery in Africa. We investigated the postoperative outcomes following procedural sedation by nonphysicians and physicians in Africa. We hypothesized that the level of training of the sedation provider may be associated with the incidence of severe postoperative complications and death. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort of inhospital adult surgical patients representing 25 African countries was performed. The primary outcome was a collapsed composite of inhospital severe postoperative complications and death. We assessed the association between receiving procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician (versus physician) and the composite outcome using logistic regression. We used the inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method to adjust for potential confounding variables including patient age, hemoglobin level, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physiological status, diabetes mellitus, urgency of surgery, severity of surgery, indication for surgery, surgical discipline, seniority of the surgical team, hospital level of specialization, and hospital funding system using public or private funding. All patients who only received procedural sedation for surgery were included. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 98 (29.2%) received sedation from a nonphysician provider. The incidence of severe postoperative complications and death was 10 of 98 (10.2%) in the nonphysician group and 5 of 238 (2.1%) in the physician group. The estimated association between procedural sedation conducted by a nonphysician provider and inhospital outcomes was an 8-fold increase in the odds of severe complications and/or death, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 8.3 (2.7-25.6). CONCLUSIONS: The modest number of observations in this secondary data analysis suggests that shifting the task of procedural sedation from physicians to nonphysicians to increase access to care may be associated with severe postoperative complications and death in Africa. Research focusing on identifying factors contributing to adverse outcomes associated with procedural sedation is necessary to make this practice safer. (Anesth Analg 2022;135:250-63) KEY POINTS• Question: Is there a difference in patient safety when procedural sedation is conducted by nonphysicians or physicians in Africa? • Findings: This secondary analysis of the African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) suggests an association with severe postoperative complications and death when procedural sedation is provided by a nonphysician in Africa. • Meaning: The health care environment in which procedural sedation is provided by nonphysicians in Afr...

There is sufficient RCT evidence to suggest that SSCs decrease hospital mortality and surgical outcomes in tertiary and community hospitals. However, randomised evidence of the efficacy of the SSC at rural hospital level is absent.