METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies assessing quality improvement processes, interventions, and structure in developing country surgical systems was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they were conducted in an LMIC, occurred in a surgical setting, and measured the effect of an implementation and its impact. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were rates of rates of hospital-acquired infection (HAI) and surgical site infections (SSI). Prospero Registration: CRD42020171542.
RESULT: Of 38,273 search results, 31 studies were included in a qualitative synthesis, and 28 articles were included in a meta-analysis. Implementation of multimodal bundled interventions reduced the incidence of HAI by a relative risk (RR) of 0.39 (95%CI 0.26 to 0.59), the effect of hand hygiene interventions on HAIs showed a non-significant effect of RR of 0.69 (0.46-1.05). The WHO Safe Surgery Checklist reduced mortality by RR 0.68 (0.49 to 0.95) and SSI by RR 0.50 (0.33 to 0.63) and antimicrobial stewardship interventions reduced SSI by RR 0.67 (0.48-0.93).
CONCLUSION: There is evidence that a number of quality improvement processes, interventions and structural changes can improve mortality, HAI and SSI outcomes in the peri-operative setting in LMICs.
DESIGN: Randomised trial.
SETTING: University Hospital, Malaysia: April 2016-October 2016.
POPULATION: 331 women delivered by caesarean section.
METHOD: Participants were randomised to leaving their wound entirely exposed (n = 165) or dressed (n = 166) with a low adhesive dressing (next day removal).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were superficial SSI rate (assessed by provider inspection up to hospital discharge and telephone questionnaires on days 14 and 28) and patient satisfaction with wound coverage management before hospital discharge.
RESULTS: The superficial SSI rates were 2/153 (1.3%) versus 5/157 (3.2%) (relative risk [RR] 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-2.1; P = 0.45) and patient satisfaction with wound management was 7 [5-8] versus 7 [5-8] (P = 0.81) in exposed compared with dressed study groups, respectively. In the wound-exposed patients, stated preference for wound exposure significantly increased from 35.5 to 57.5%, whereas in the wound-dressed patients, the stated preference for a dressed wound fell from 48.5 to 34.4% when assessed at recruitment (pre-randomisation) to day 28. There were no significant differences in inpatient additional dressing or gauze use for wound care, post-hospital discharge self-reported wound issues of infection, antibiotics, redness and inflammation, swollen, painful, and fluid leakage to day 28 across trial groups.
CONCLUSION: The trial is underpowered as SSI rates were lower than expected. Nevertheless, leaving caesarean wounds exposed does not appear to have detrimental effects, provided patient counselling to manage expectations is undertaken.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An exposed compared with a dressed caesarean wound has a similar superficial surgical site infection rate, patient satisfaction and appearance.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.
Method: The guidelines were developed by an appointed workgroup comprising experts in the Asia Pacific region, following reviews of previously published guidelines and recommendations relevant to each section.
Results: It recommends that healthcare facilities review specific risk factors and develop effective prevention strategies, which would be cost effective at local levels. Gaps identified are best closed using a quality improvement process. Surveillance of SSIs is recommended using accepted international methodology. The timely feedback of the data analysed would help in the monitoring of effective implementation of interventions.
Conclusions: Healthcare facilities should aim for excellence in safe surgery practices. The implementation of evidence-based practices using a quality improvement process helps towards achieving effective and sustainable results.
METHODS: We used the methodology employed by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control to assess the prevalence of HAIs in Punjab Province, Pakistan. Data were collected from 13 hospitals using a structured data collection tool.
RESULTS: Out of 1,553 hospitalized patients, 130 (8.4%) had symptoms of HAIs. The most common HAI was surgical site infection (40.0%), followed by bloodstream infection (21.5%), and lower respiratory tract infection (14.6%). The prevalence of HAI was higher in private sector hospitals (25.0%) and among neonates (23.8%) and patients admitted to intensive care units (33.3%). Patients without HAIs were admitted mainly to public sector hospitals and adult medical and surgical wards.
CONCLUSIONS: The study found a high rate of HAIs among hospitals in Pakistan, especially surgical site infections, bloodstream infections, and lower respiratory tract infections. This needs to be addressed to reduce morbidity, mortality, and costs in the future, and further research is planned.