Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators

Abstract

Background In 2015, six indicators were proposed to evaluate global progress towards access to safe, affordable and timely surgical and anaesthesia care. Although some have been adopted as core global health indicators, none has been evaluated systematically. The aims of this study were to assess the availability, comparability and utility of the indicators, and to present available data and updated estimates. Methods Nationally representative data were compiled for all World Health Organization (WHO) member states from 2010 to 2016 through contacts with official bodies and review of the published and grey literature, and available databases. Availability, comparability and utility were assessed for each indicator: access to timely essential surgery, specialist surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. Where feasible, imputation models were developed to generate global estimates. Results Of all WHO member states, 19 had data on the proportion of the population within 2h of a surgical facility, 154 had data on workforce density, 72 reported number of procedures, and nine had perioperative mortality data, but none could report data on catastrophic or impoverishing expenditure. Comparability and utility were variable, and largely dependent on different definitions used. There were sufficient data to estimate that worldwide, in 2015, there were 2 038 947 (i.q.r. 1 884 916–2 281 776) surgeons, obstetricians and anaesthetists, and 266·1 (95 per cent c.i. 220·1 to 344·4) million operations performed. Conclusion Surgical and anaesthesia indicators are increasingly being adopted by the global health community, but data availability remains low. Comparability and utility for all indicators require further resolution.

Two-hour surgical access in South Africa: a useful indicator in a middle- income country?

“…In a recent study, data to measure this metric were available for only 19 countries and of these, only 2 were in SSA. (16) Therefore, in order to estimate 2HA in South Africa, we used the presence of a functional operating theatre, a surgical provider, and provision of at least one CS annually as a proxy definition for surgical capacity.…”

Feasibility study for a randomized clinical trial of bupivacaine, lidocaine with adrenaline, or placebo wound infiltration to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

“…Around 83 per cent of the world's population live in low‐ and low–middle‐income countries (LMICs). More than half of all surgical procedures completed worldwide take place in LMICs. Conversely, most research is conducted in high‐income country settings.…”

Global surgery in an ecosystem for worldwide health

“…Thus, financial models must reflect what the population at risk needs within realistic provision capabilities, rather than what produces revenue. The six indicators for improvement in global surgery point to small yet incremental improvements to build on, with call for further action, stepwise and repeated monitoring, and audits of implementation. There is a need for a wider buy‐in by politicians, health leaders and funders across nations.…”