Anaesthesia care providers employed in humanitarian settings by Médecins Sans Frontières: a retrospective observational study of 173 084 surgical cases over 10 years.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which different categories of anaesthesia provider are used in humanitarian surgical projects and to explore the volume and nature of their surgical workload. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using 10 years (2008-2017) of routine case-level data linked with routine programme-level data from surgical projects run exclusively by Médecins Sans Frontières-Operational Centre Brussels (MSF-OCB). SETTING: Projects were in contexts of natural disaster (ND, entire expatriate team deployed by MSF-OCB), active conflict (AC) and stable healthcare gaps (HG). In AC and HG settings, MSF-OCB support pre-existing local facilities. Hospital facilities ranged from basic health centres with surgical capabilities to tertiary referral centres. PARTICIPANTS: The full dataset included 178 814 surgical cases. These were categorised by most senior anaesthetic provider for the project, according to qualification: specialist physician anaesthesiologists, qualified nurse anaesthetists and uncertified anaesthesia providers. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Volume and nature of surgical workload of different anaesthesia providers. RESULTS: Full routine data were available for 173 084 cases (96.8%): 2518 in ND, 42 225 in AC, 126 936 in HG. Anaesthesia was predominantly led by physician anaesthesiologists (100% in ND, 66% in AC and HG), then nurse anaesthetists (19% in AC and HG) or uncertified anaesthesia providers (15% in AC and HG). Across all settings and provider groups, patients were mostly healthy young adults (median age range 24-27 years), with predominantly females in HG contexts, and males in AC contexts. Overall intra-operative mortality was 0.2%. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to existing knowledge of the nature of anaesthetic provision in humanitarian settings, while demonstrating the value of high-quality, routine data collection at scale in this sector. Further evaluation of perioperative outcomes associated with different models of humanitarian anaesthetic provision is required.

Providing Anesthesia Care in Resource-limited Settings: A 6-year Analysis of Anesthesia Services Provided at Médecins Sans Frontières Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia is integral to improving surgical care in low-resource settings. Anesthesia providers who work in these areas should be familiar with the particularities associated with providing care in these settings, including the types and outcomes of commonly performed anesthetic procedures. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of anesthetic procedures performed at Médecins Sans Frontières facilities from July 2008 to June 2014. The authors collected data on patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and patient outcome. The factors associated with perioperative mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Over the 6-yr period, 75,536 anesthetics were provided to adult patients. The most common anesthesia techniques were spinal anesthesia (45.56%) and general anesthesia without intubation (33.85%). Overall perioperative mortality was 0.25%. Emergent procedures (0.41%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 15.86; 95% CI, 2.14 to 115.58), specialized surgeries (2.74%; AOR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.27 to 11.47), and surgical duration more than 6 h (9.76%; AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.09 to 14.88) were associated with higher odds of mortality than elective surgeries, minor surgeries, and surgical duration less than 1 h, respectively. Compared with general anesthesia with intubation, spinal anesthesia, regional anesthesia, and general anesthesia without intubation were associated with lower perioperative mortality rates of 0.04% (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.18), 0.06% (AOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92), and 0.14% (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.45), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of anesthetics can be carried out safely in resource-limited settings. Providers need to be aware of the potential risks and the outcomes associated with anesthesia administration in these settings.

An Analysis of Cesarean Section and Emergency Hernia Ratios as Markers of Surgical Capacity in Low-Income Countries Affected by Humanitarian Emergencies from 2008 - 2014 at Médecins sans Frontières Operations Centre Brussels Projects.

BACKGROUND: Surgical capacity assessments in low-income countries have demonstrated critical deficiencies. Though vital for planning capacity improvements, these assessments are resource intensive and impractical during the planning phase of a humanitarian crisis. This study aimed to determine cesarean sections to total operations performed (CSR) and emergency herniorrhaphies to all herniorrhaphies performed (EHR) ratios from Médecins Sans Frontières Operations Centre Brussels (MSF-OCB) projects and examine if these established metrics are useful proxies for surgical capacity in low-income countries affected by crisis. METHODS: All procedures performed in MSF-OCB operating theatres from July 2008 through June 2014 were reviewed. Projects providing only specialty care, not fully operational or not offering elective surgeries were excluded. Annual CSRs and EHRs were calculated for each project. Their relationship was assessed with linear regression. RESULTS: After applying the exclusion criteria, there were 47,472 cases performed at 13 sites in 8 countries. There were 13,939 CS performed (29% of total cases). Of the 4,632 herniorrhaphies performed (10% of total cases), 30% were emergency procedures. CSRs ranged from 0.06 to 0.65 and EHRs ranged from 0.03 to 1.0. Linear regression of annual ratios at each project did not demonstrate statistical evidence for the CSR to predict EHR [F(2,30)=2.34, p=0.11, R2=0.11]. The regression equation was: EHR = 0.25 + 0.52(CSR) + 0.10(reason for MSF-OCB assistance). CONCLUSION: Surgical humanitarian assistance projects operate in areas with critical surgical capacity deficiencies that are further disrupted by crisis. Rapid, accurate assessments of surgical capacity are necessary to plan cost- and clinically-effective humanitarian responses to baseline and acute unmet surgical needs in LICs affected by crisis. Though CSR and EHR may meet these criteria in 'steady-state' healthcare systems, they may not be useful during humanitarian emergencies. Further study of the relationship between direct surgical capacity improvements and these ratios is necessary to document their role in humanitarian settings.