RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery (ACS) encompasses trauma, critical care, and emergency general surgery. Due to high volumes of emergency surgery, an ACS service was developed at a referral hospital in Rwanda. The aim of this study was to evaluate the epidemiology of ACS and understand the impact of an ACS service on patient outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of ACS patients before and after introduction of an ACS service. χ2 test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to describe the epidemiology and compare outcomes before (pre-ACS)) and after (post-ACS) implementation of the ACS service. RESULTS: Data were available for 120 patients before ACS and 102 patients after ACS. Diagnoses included: intestinal obstruction (n=80, 36%), trauma (n=38, 17%), appendicitis (n=31, 14%), and soft tissue infection (n=17, 8%) with no difference between groups. The most common operation was midline laparotomy (n=138, 62%) with no difference between groups (p=0.910). High American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (ASA ≥3) (11% vs. 40%, p<0.001) was more common after ACS. There was no difference in intensive care unit admission (8% vs. 8%, p=0.894), unplanned reoperation (22% vs. 13%, p=0.082), or mortality (10% vs. 11%, p=0.848). The median length of hospital stay was longer (11 days vs. 7 days, p<0.001) before ACS. CONCLUSIONS: An ACS service can be implemented in a low-resource setting. In Rwanda, ACS patients are young with few comorbidities, but high rates of mortality and morbidity. In spite of more patients who are critically ill in the post-ACS period, implementation of an ACS service resulted in decreased length of hospital stay with no difference in morbidity and mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic study type, level III.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgical conditions represent up to 30% of the global burden of diseases. The aim of this study was to assess the delays in patients transferred to a tertiary referral hospital from district hospitals (DHs) in Rwanda with emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions. METHODS: We performed a prospective review of all EGS patients referred from DH over a 3-month period to assess delays in transfer and accessing care. We then surveyed general practitioners to define their perspective on delays in surgical care. RESULTS: Over a 3-month period, there were 86 patients transferred from DH with EGS conditions. The most common diagnoses were bowel obstruction (n = 22, 26%) and trauma (n = 19, 22%). The most common performed operations were laparotomy (n = 21, 24%) and bowel resection (n = 20, 23%). The mortality rate was 12%, and the intensive care unit admission rate was 4%. In transfer to the referral hospital, 5% patients were delayed for financial reasons and 2% due to lack of insurance. After reaching CHUK, 5% patients were delayed due to laboratory and radiology issues. Other delays included no operating theater available (4%) and no surgeon available (1%). Providers' perceptions for not performing surgeries at DH were predominantly the lack of a competent surgical provider or anesthesia staff. CONCLUSION: EGS patients represent a broad range of diagnoses. Delays were noted at each step in the referral process with multiple areas for potential improvement. Expanding surgical access at the DH has the potential to decrease delays and thereby improves patient outcomes.
