Practical Guide to Delivering Surgical Skills Courses in a Low-Income Country: Knowledge Gained From a Surgical Education Partnership in Haiti

Clinical Practice Guidelines to Support Capacity Building in Orthopaedic Surgical Outreach: An International Consensus Building Approach

BACKGROUND

Surgical outreach to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by organizations from high- income countries is on the rise to help address the growing burden of conditions warranting surgery. However, concerns remain about the impact and sustainability of such outreach. Leading organizations (e.g., the World Health Organization) advocate for a capacity-building approach to ensure the safety, quality, and sustainability of the local health-care system. Despite this, to our knowledge, no guidelines exist to inform such efforts. We aimed to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to support capacity-building in orthopaedic surgical outreach utilizing a multistakeholder and international voting panel.

METHODS

We followed a modified American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) CPG development process. We systematically reviewed the existing literature across 7 predefined capacity-building domains (partnership, professional development, governance, community impact, finance, coordination, and culture). A writing panel composed of 6 orthopaedic surgeons with extensive experience in surgical outreach reviewed the existing literature and developed a consensus-based CPG for each domain. We created an international voting panel of orthopaedic surgeons and administrators who have leadership roles in outreach organizations or hospitals with which outreach organizations partner. Members individually reviewed the CPGs and voted to approve or disapprove each guideline. A CPG was considered approved if >80% of panel members voted to approve it.

RESULTS

An international voting panel of 14 surgeons and administrators from 6 countries approved all 7 of the CPGs. Each CPG provides recommendations for capacity-building in a specific domain. For example, in the domain of partnership, the CPG recommends the development of a documented plan for ongoing, bidirectional partnership between the outreach organization and the local team. In the domain of professional development, the CPG recommends the development of a needs-based curriculum focused on both surgical and nonsurgical patient care utilizing didactic and hands-on techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

As orthopaedic surgical outreach grows, best-practice CPGs to inform capacity-building initiatives can help to ensure that resources and efforts are optimized to support the sustainability of care delivery at local sites. These guidelines can be reviewed and updated in the future as evidence that supports capacity-building in LMICs evolves.The global burden of disease warranting surgery is substantial, and morbidity and mortality from otherwise treatable conditions remain disproportionately high in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1,2. It is estimated that up to 2 million (about 40%) of injury-related deaths in LMICs could be avoided annually if mortality rates were reduced to the level of those in high-income countries (HICs)3. Despite this, progress toward improved access to safe, timely surgery in resource-poor areas has been slow. Historically, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have tried to address unmet surgical needs through short-term outreach trips; however, growing criticism has highlighted the limitations of short-term trips, including limited follow-up, an increased burden on the local workforce, and further depletion of local resources4-6. In light of ongoing concerns, public health priorities have shifted toward models that emphasize long-term capacity-building rather than short-term care delivery. Capacity-building is an approach to health-care development that builds independence through infrastructure development, sustainability, and enhanced problem-solving while taking context into account7,8.

Off-label use of orthopedical trauma implants in a low-income country

Purpose

Lack of resources, severe injuries, and logistical flaws force surgeons in low-income countries (LIC) to improvise during surgery and use implants “off-label.” These off-label treatments are specific for the work of trauma surgeons in non-governmental (NGO) hospitals in LIC. The aim of this study is to show the need of off-label surgery in an environment of low resources by means of typical examples.

Methods

Off-label treated fractures, the implant used instead, and the reason for off-label treatment were investigated in 367 injuries over a three month period in an NGO hospital in Sierra Leone.

Results

Twenty-seven fractures were treated off-label with mostly K-wires (88.89%) and external fixators (51.85%). Three reasons for off-label use could be defined: no suitable implants (N = 14), the condition of soft tissues that did not allow internal osteosyntheses (N = 10), and implants not ready for surgery due to logistic flaws (N = 3). The implants needed were mostly locking plates.

Conclusion

Surgeons in similar settings must use K-wires and external fixators to treat complex fractures. Using implants off-label can help surgeons to treat fractures otherwise left untreated.

Resident Rotations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Motivations, Impact, and Host Perspectives

Interest in clinical rotations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has grown among high-income country (HIC) orthopaedic residents. This study addresses the following questions: (1) What motivates HIC surgical residents to rotate in LMICs? (2) What is the impact of rotations on HIC residents? (3) What are the LMIC partner perceptions of HIC collaboration?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search strategy of multiple databases returned 3,740 unique articles pertaining to HIC surgical resident motivations for participating in rotations in LMICs or the LMIC host perspective. Data extraction was dually performed using meta-ethnography, the qualitative equivalent of meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included in the final analysis. HIC residents were primarily motivated to rotate in LMICs by altruistic intent, with greatest impact on professional development. LMIC partners mostly valued HIC sustained investment and educational opportunities for LMIC partners. From LMIC's perspective, potential harm from collaboration arose from system-level and individual-level discordance between HIC and LMIC expectations and priorities. HIC priorities included the following: (1) adequate operative time, (2) exposure to varied pathology, and (3) mentorship. LMIC priorities included the following: (1) avoiding competition with HIC residents for surgical cases, (2) that HIC groups not undermine LMIC internal authority, (3) that HIC initiatives address local LMIC needs, and (4) that LMIC partners be included as authors on HIC research initiatives. Both HIC and LMIC partners raised ethical concerns regarding collaboration and perceived HIC residents to be underprepared for their LMIC rotation.

DISCUSSION

This study synthesizes the available literature on HIC surgical resident motivations for and impact of rotating in LMICs and the LMIC host perception of collaboration. Three improvement categories emerged: that residents (1) receive site-specific preparation before departure, (2) remain in country long enough to develop site-specific skills, and (3) cultivate flexibility and cultural humility. Specific suggestions based on synthesized data are offered for each concept and can serve as a foundation for mutually beneficial international electives in LMICs for HIC orthopaedic trainees.