Markin A.,Surgns. OverSeas SOS |
Markin A.,Ford Motor Company |
Barbero R.,Non Communicable Disease Program |
Leow J.J.,Surgns. OverSeas SOS |
And 9 more authors.
World Journal of Surgery | Year: 2014
Introduction: In response to the need for simple, rapid means of quantifying surgical capacity in low resource settings, Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) developed the personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies (PIPES) tool. The present investigation assessed the inter-rater reliability of the PIPES tool. Methods: As part of a government assessment of surgical services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the PIPES tool was translated into Spanish and applied in interviews with physicians at 31 public hospitals. An additional interview was conducted with nurses at a convenience sample of 25 of these hospitals. Physician and nurse responses were then compared to generate an estimate of reliability. For dichotomous survey items, inter-rater reliability between physicians and nurses was assessed using the Cohen's kappa statistic and percent agreement. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement for continuous items. Results: Cohen's kappa was 0.46 for infrastructure, 0.43 for procedures, 0.26 for equipment, and 0 for supplies sections. The median correlation coefficient was 0.91 for continuous items. Correlation was 0.79 for the PIPES index, and ranged from 0.32 to 0.98 for continuous response items. Conclusions: Reliability of the PIPES tool was moderate for the infrastructure and procedures sections, fair for the equipment section, and poor for supplies section when comparing surgeons' responses to nurses' responses - an extremely rigorous test of reliability. These results indicate that the PIPES tool is an effective measure of surgical capacity but that the equipment and supplies sections may need to be revised. © 2014 Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Source
Ameh E.A.,National Hospital |
Mulwafu W.,University of Malawi |
Donkor P.,Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science And Technology |
Derbew M.,Addis Ababa Institute of Technology |
And 18 more authors.
Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference | Year: 2015
Background: Over the past decade, assessments of surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have contributed to our understanding of barriers to the delivery of surgical services in a number of countries. It is yet unclear, however, how the findings of these assessments have been applied and built upon within the published literature. Methods: A systematic literature review of surgical capacity assessments in LMICs was performed to evaluate current levels of understanding of global surgical capacity and to identify areas for future study. A reverse snowballing method was then used to follow-up citations of the identified studies to assess how this research has been applied and built upon in the literature. Results: Twenty-one papers reporting the findings of surgical capacity assessments conducted in 17 different LMICs in South Asia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa were identified. These studies documented substantial deficits in human resources, infrastructure, equipment, and supplies. Only seven additional papers were identified which applied or built upon the studies. Among these, capacity assessment findings were most commonly used to develop novel tools and intervention strategies, but they were also used as baseline measurements against which updated capacity assessments were compared. Conclusions: While the global surgery community has made tremendous progress in establishing baseline values of surgical capacity in LMICs around the world, further work is necessary to build upon and apply the foundational knowledge established through these efforts. Capacity assessment data should be coordinated and used in ongoing research efforts to monitor and evaluate progress in global surgery and to develop targeted intervention strategies. Intervention strategy development may also be further incorporated into the evaluation process itself. © 2015 Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Source