Project description:BackgroundThe Lancet Commission on Global Surgery (LCoGS) published its seminal report in 2015, carving a niche for global surgery academia. Six years after the LCoGS, a scoping review was conducted to see how the term 'global surgery' is characterized by the literature and how it relates to LCoGS and its domains.MethodsPubMed was searched for publications between January 2015 and February 2021 that used the term 'global surgery' in the title, abstract, or key words or cited the LCoGS. Variables extracted included LCoGS domains, authorship metrics, geographic scope, and clinical specialty.ResultsThe search captured 938 articles that qualified for data extraction. Nearly 80% of first and last authors had high-income country affiliations. Africa was the most frequently investigated region, though many countries within the region were under-represented. The World Journal of Surgery was the most frequent journal, publishing 13.9% of all articles. General surgery, pediatric surgery, and neurosurgery were the most represented specialties. Of the LCoGS domains, healthcare delivery and management were the most studied, while economics and financing were the least studied.ConclusionA lack of consensus on the definition of global surgery remains. Additional research is needed in economics and financing, while obstetrics and trauma are under-represented in literature using the term 'global surgery'. Efforts in academic global surgery must give a voice to those carrying the global surgery agenda forward on the frontlines. Focusing on research capacity-building and encouraging contribution by local partners will lead to a stronger, more cohesive global surgery community.
Project description:In this article, we describe the framework of the Lancet Global Health Commission on High Quality Health Systems, propose new and undermeasured indicators of TB care quality, and discuss implications of the Commission's key conclusions for measuring and improving the quality of TB care services. The Commission contends that measurement of quality should focus on the processes of care and their impacts. In addition to monitoring treatment coverage and the availability of tools, governments should consider indicators of clinical competence (for e.g. ability of providers to correctly diagnose TB and adhere to treatment guidelines), of timely, continuous and integrated care and of respectful and patient-centered care. Indicators of impact include TB mortality and treatment success rates, but also quality of life and daily functioning among TB patients, public trust in TB services, and bypassing of the formal health system for TB care. Cascades of care, from initial care seeking to recurrence-free survival, should be built in every high-burden country to monitor quality longitudinally. In turn, improvement efforts should target the foundations of health systems and consider the Commission's four universal actions: governing for quality, redesigning service delivery, transforming the health workforce and igniting demand for quality TB services. Important work remains to validate new indicators of TB care quality, develop data collection systems for new measures, and to test new strategies for improving the delivery of competent and respectful TB care.
Project description:BackgroundEthiopia signed the VISION 2020 Global Declaration and launched its eye health program in 2002. Since then, there has been limited systematic and comprehensive evaluation of the progress towards VISION 2020 goals in Ethiopia.ObjectiveTo evaluate Gurage Zone progress towards VISION 2020 targets and process indicators.MethodAn institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted among all public and private eye health care facilities in the Gurage Zone within the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People Region of Ethiopia. The evaluation protocol was adopted from the VISION 2020 situational analysis data collection tool. We used this structure to evaluate progress in terms of human resources for eye health, infrastructure, and service delivery at the zonal health office and health facilities. At the time of the study, Gurage Zone had a 1.7 million catchment area population. There were a total of five eye care centers, one of which was established by a non-governmental organization. Three of these facilities were secondary eye care centers with an operating theatre and two facilities were primary eye care centers. At the zonal level, there was no survey data available on the prevalence of blindness.ResultThere was no systemic evaluation of VISION 2020 process indicators. The budget allocation specific to eye health care was less than 0.7% of the total budget of the zonal health office. The human resources for eye health (HReH) in the catchment area were: one ophthalmologist, two cataract surgeons, five optometrists, and 12 ophthalmic nurses, which is below the VISION 2020 targets for HReH. In terms of equipment, neither primary eye care center had a slit lamp biomicroscope, and two of the three secondary eye care centers did not have intraocular pressure measuring equipment. Only one secondary eye care center was providing glaucoma surgical services, and no center provided emergency and elective pediatric surgery. The cataract surgical rate determined by the study was 1967.ConclusionGurage Zone showed significant improvement in terms of cataract surgical rate. But it had not achieved VISION 2020 goals in terms of critical HReH and service delivery. We recommend that the zonal health office carries out a focused and baseline evaluation of eye health care service achievements.