RESUMO
Background: Globally, more than 97% of children needing palliative care reside in low- and middle-income countries, where there is very limited access to palliative care. Several community-based palliative care programs focused on adults, have been described in resource limited settings, suggesting a simple and low-cost approach to providing palliative care. The implementation of community-based palliative care for children has not previously been described. Context: This community case study describes the implementation of an innovative model of community-based palliative care program in and urban informal settlement, (Korail Slum, Bangladesh). The program is led by a local government hospital, with experience in community-based palliative care, in partnership with the local community. Problem: Children with serious conditions in an urban unformal settlement do not have access to health services which address their medical, psychosocial and spiritual needs. This gap leads to a significant burden of preventable suffering for them and their families. Solution: A community-based palliative care program was implemented, which includes home care by trained community health workers, with support and supervision from palliative care nurses and physicians. The program's objective is to provide effective symptom management, clear communication about the child's condition with parents, and psychosocial support including support for basic needs. The program was free for families including medications, medical equipment, physiotherapy, and speech therapy. The program was monitored through regular assessments of quality of life using standardized tools (PedsQL Family Impact Module), as well as interviews and focus group discussions. Conclusion and lessons learned: A model of community-based palliative care for children can be implemented in an urban informal settlement. Program effectiveness is enhanced by community health workers who share language, culture, and life-experiences with the individuals they serve. Partnerships with local health care facilities and community groups strengthen the program's sustainability. Ensuring financial sustainability remains a challenge.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively. RESULTS: We included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes.
