Dataset Information

Validation of the World Health Organization tool for situational analysis to assess emergency and essential surgical care at district hospitals in Ghana.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Surgical Care (hereafter called the WHO Tool) has been used in more than 25 countries and is the largest effort to assess surgical care in the world. However, it has not yet been independently validated. Test-retest reliability is one way to validate the degree to which tests instruments are free from random error. The aim of the present field study was to determine the test-retest reliability of the WHO Tool.

Methods

The WHO Tool was mailed to 10 district hospitals in Ghana. Written instructions were provided along with a letter from the Ghana Health Services requesting the hospital administrator to complete the survey tool. After ensuring delivery and completion of the forms, the study team readministered the WHO Tool at the time of an on-site visit less than 1 month later. The results of the two tests were compared to calculate kappa statistics for each of the 152 questions in the WHO Tool. The kappa statistic is a statistical measure of the degree of agreement above what would be expected based on chance alone.

Results

Ten hospitals were surveyed twice over a short interval (i.e., less than 1 month). Weighted and unweighted kappa statistics were calculated for 152 questions. The median unweighted kappa for the entire survey was 0.43 (interquartile range 0-0.84). The infrastructure section (24 questions) had a median kappa of 0.81; the human resources section (13 questions) had a median kappa of 0.77; the surgical procedures section (67 questions) had a median kappa of 0.00; and the emergency surgical equipment section (48 questions) had a median kappa of 0.81.

Conclusions

Hospital capacity survey questions related to infrastructure characteristics had high reliability. However, questions related to process of care had poor reliability and may benefit from supplemental data gathered by direct observation. Limitations to the study include the small sample size: 10 district hospitals in a single country. Consistent and high correlations calculated from the field testing within the present analysis suggest that the WHO Tool for Situational Analysis is a reliable tool where it measures structure and setting, but it should be revised for measuring process of care.

SUBMITTER: Osen H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3032911 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo provide a general overview of the reported current surgical capacity and delivery in order to advance current knowledge and suggest targets for further development and research within the region of sub-Saharan Africa.DesignScoping review.SettingDistrict hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa.Data sourcesPubMed and Ovid EMBASE from January 2000 to December 2019.Study selectionStudies were included if they contained information about types of surgical procedures performed, number of operations per year, types of anaesthesia delivered, cadres of surgical/anaesthesia providers and/or patients' outcomes.ResultsThe 52 articles included in analysis provided information about 16 countries. District hospitals were a group of diverse institutions ranging from 21 to 371 beds. The three most frequently reported procedures were caesarean section, laparotomy and hernia repair, but a wide range of orthopaedics, plastic surgery and neurosurgery procedures were also mentioned. The number of operations performed per year per district hospital ranged from 239 to 5233. The most mentioned anaesthesia providers were non-physician clinicians trained in anaesthesia. They deliver mainly general and spinal anaesthesia. Depending on countries, articles referred to different surgical care providers: specialist surgeons, medical officers and non-physician clinicians. 15 articles reported perioperative complications among which surgical site infection was the most frequent. Fifteen articles reported perioperative deaths of which the leading causes were sepsis, haemorrhage and anaesthesia complications.ConclusionDistrict hospitals play a significant role in sub-Saharan Africa, providing both emergency and elective surgeries. Most procedures are done under general or spinal anaesthesia, often administered by non-physician clinicians. Depending on countries, surgical care may be provided by medical officers, specialist surgeons and/or non-physician clinicians. Research on safety, quality and volume of surgical and anaesthesia care in this setting is scarce, and more attention to these questions is required.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improper use of antibiotics leads to the emergence of resistant microorganisms as well as drug toxicity, increased healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality. Globally, an estimated 25-68% of hospitalized patients receive suboptimal antibiotic regimes. Information on the extent of this problem in Ghana is currently limited, particularly in surgical units. To strategize for interventions, we estimated the antibiotic use prevalence in surgical departments in a country-wide point prevalence survey (PPS) in Ghana. METHODS:Between October 2016 and December 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional multi-center country-wide PPS. This involved an audit of in-patients' records from all units/departments of ten systematically selected hospitals in Ghana. Data were collected with a standardized questionnaire, adopted from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. In this report, we present data on antibiotic use from the surgical units. RESULTS:Of 2107 eligible patients included in the PPS, 540 patients were identified in surgical units, of which 70.7% (382/540) received antibiotic therapy. A total of 636 antibiotic prescriptions were issued to these surgical patients; 224 (58.6%) for treatment, including 50 for treatment of hospital-acquired infections, and 144 (37.7%) for prophylaxis (medical and surgical). Median duration of antibiotic therapy prior to the survey was 5 days (interquartile range (IQR): 3-8 days). Surgical prophylaxis was administered for longer than the recommended one day in 107 of 144 (88.4%) patients. The choice of antibiotics was largely similar for community- and hospital-acquired infections as well as for prophylaxis. Only 3.7% of patients had microbiological analysis done on clinical samples. CONCLUSION:We found a high prevalence of antibiotic use, with the choice of antibiotics, in some cases, inconsistent with the country's treatment guidelines. Antibiotics were administered for long duration including antibiotics for prophylactic purposes and the majority was started without supporting microbiological analysis. Prescription practices that encourage rational use of antibiotics guided by microbiology and enforcement of antibiotic policy guidelines should be the target for future interventions.

Project description:IntroductionQuality work environment has been established as a marker of employee value creation. A plethora of qualitative evidence suggested that sustained focus on employee satisfaction through changes in the work environment, communication of patient-centered care strategic vision, management of staff workload, and workplace social support are factors that stimulate Patient-centered care. Yet, it seems that the effect of work environment on the patient-centered behavior of hospital employees has not been statistically estimated, and it is unclear which of the elements of the work environment best predict patient-centered behavior.MethodsUsing a survey design and quantitative methods to gather and analyze data, a sample of 179 respondents from three district hospitals were included in the study using a multi-stage proportional sampling technique. Data were collected using self-administered Likert item questionnaires. Simple linear regression was used to estimate the influence of work environment elements on patient-centered behavior. Stepwise multiple regression was used to determine the best predictors of patient-centered behavior of hospital employees.ResultsPerceived internal communication of patient-centered care strategies (β = 0.23; P<0.001), supervisor support (β = 0.31; P<0.001), coworker support (β = 0.50; P<0.001), and working conditions (β = 0.18; P<0.013) had a positive significant effect on patient-centered behavior of employees. Good predictors of employees' patient-centered behavior were perceived coworker support (β = 0.51; P<0.001) and job characteristics (β = 0.16; P<0.01).ConclusionThe work environment of hospital employees significantly affects their patient-centered behavior. Co-worker support and job characteristics were the best predictors of the patient-centered behavior of hospital employees. Hospitals Managers seeking to improve patient-centered behavior through employee value creation may consider improved job characteristics in combination with workplace social support and or communication of PCC strategies and goals.

Project description:Despite the established positive benefits, LMICs' adoption of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is inadequate, with as little as 20% use. This study assessed the utilization and beliefs that drive the non-utilization of the WHO SSC among surgical providers at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital (KBTH) in Accra, Ghana. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 186 surgical providers at the KBTH in Ghana. Data collected included the category of personnel, awareness of the SSC, training received, previously identified barriers, and staff perceptions. Utilization and drivers associated with non-utilization of the SSC were assessed using bivariate log-binomial regression. Out of 190 surgical professionals invited, 186 gave their consent and participated in the survey, giving a response rate of 97.9%. Respondents comprised 69 (37%) surgeons, 66 (36%) anesthetists, and 51 (27%) nurses. Only 30.4% of surgical professionals always use the SSC, as advised by WHO. The majority (67.7%) of surgical professionals had received no formal training on using the WHO SSC. The proportion was highest among surgeons (81.2%) compared to anesthetists (66.7%) and nurses (51%). Surgeons were perceived by other professionals to be the least supportive of checklist use (87.6%), in contrast to nurses (96.1%) and anesthetists (93.9%). Significant drivers associated with checklist usage among surgical professionals included the SSC taking too long to complete, poor communication between anesthetist and surgeon, checklist not covering all perioperative risks, difficulty finding a coordinator, poor attitude of team members toward questions, surgical specialty/unit and training status of professionals. The checklist was always used by only a small (30%) proportion of surgical professionals at the KBTH. Improving checklist use will necessitate its careful application to all surgical operations and a cycle of periodic training that includes context-specific adjustments, checklist auditing, and feedback from local coordinators.