The Specialist Anesthesiology Workforce in East, Central, and Southern Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The populations of the East, Central, and Southern African regions receive only a fraction of the surgical procedures they require, and patients are more likely to die after surgery than the global average. An insufficient anesthetic workforce is a key barrier to safe surgery. The anesthetic workforce in this region includes anesthesiologists and nonphysician anesthesia providers. A detailed understanding of the anesthesiologist workforce in East, Central, and Southern Africa is required to devise strategies for the training, retention, and distribution of the workforce. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of the anesthesiologist workforce of the 8 member countries of the College of Anaesthesiologists of East, Central, and Southern Africa (CANECSA) was undertaken. Data collection took place between May 2020 and September 2020 using existing databases and was validated through direct contact with anesthesiologists and other hospital staff. Primary outcomes were: total number of anesthesiologists in the region and their demographics, including gender, age, country of practice, current work location, country of origin, and country where they received their initial anesthesia qualification. RESULTS: Within the CANECSA member countries, 411 qualified anesthesiologists were identified (0.19 per 100,000 population). The median age was 41 years, and one-third were women. The majority (67.5%) were based in urban areas with a population >1 million people, and most are used by government institutions (61.6%). Most anesthesiologists in the region were trained (89.1%) and currently work (95.1%) in their home country. CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of anesthesiologists in CANECSA member countries are extremely low-about 5% of the minimum recommended figures-and poorly distributed relative to the population. Strategies are required to expand the anesthesia workforce and address maldistribution.

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of preoperative surgical safety checklists to improve perioperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of the implementation of a surgical safety checklist (SSC) in observational studies have shown a significant decrease in mortality and surgical complications. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of the SSC using data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015017546). A comprehensive search of six databases was conducted using the OvidSP search engine. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-four citations revealed three eligible trials conducted in tertiary hospitals and a community hospital, with a total of 6 060 patients. All trials had allocation concealment bias and a lack of blinding of participants and personnel. A single trial that contributed 5 295 of the 6 060 patients to the meta-analysis had no detection, attrition or reporting biases. The SSC was associated with significantly decreased mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 - 0.85; p=0.0004; I2=0%) and surgical complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 - 0.71; p<0.00001; I2=0%). The efficacy of the SSC on specific surgical complications was as follows: respiratory complications RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.21 - 1.70; p=0.33, cardiac complications RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 - 1.95; p=0.54, infectious complications RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 - 1.27; p=0.18, and perioperative bleeding RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.23 - 0.56; p<0.00001. CONCLUSIONS: 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.