Person:

Jenny, Hillary

Background: Brazil boasts a health scheme that aspires to provide universal coverage, but its surgical system has rarely been analyzed. In an effort to strengthen surgical systems worldwide, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed collection of six standardized indicators: two-hour access to surgery, surgical workforce density, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate (POMR), and protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure. This study aims to characterize the Brazilian surgical health system with these newly devised indicators while gaining understanding on the complexity of the indicators themselves. Methods: Using Brazil’s national healthcare database, commonly reported healthcare variables were used to calculate or simulate the six surgical indicators. Access to surgery was calculated using hospital locations, surgical workforce density was calculated using locations of surgeons, anesthesiologists and obstetricians (SAO), and surgical volume and POMR were identified with surgical procedure codes. The rates of protection against impoverishing and catastrophic expenditure were modelled using cost of inpatient hospitalization and a gamma distribution of incomes based on GINI and GDP/capita. Findings: In 2014, SAO density is 34·7/100,000 population, surgical volume is 4,433 procedures/100,000 people and POMR is 1·71%. 79·4% of surgical patients are protected against impoverishing expenditure and 84·6% were protected against catastrophic expenditure due to surgery each year. Two-hour access to surgery was not able to be calculated from national health data, but a proxy measure suggested that 97·2% of the population has two-hour access to a hospital that may be able to provide surgery. Geographic disparities were seen in all indicators. Interpretation: Brazil‘s public surgical system meets several key benchmarks. Geographic disparities, however, are substantial and raise concerns of equity. Policies should focus on stimulating appropriate geographic allocation of the surgical workforce. In some cases, where benchmarks for each indicator are met, supplemental analysis can further inform our understanding of health systems. This measured and systematic evaluation of surgical systems should be encouraged for all nations seeking to better understand their surgical systems. Funding: There was no funding for this study.

In September 2015, the international community came together to agree on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a plan of action for people, the planet, and prosperity. Ambitious and far-reaching as they are, they are built on three keystones: the elimination of extreme poverty, fighting climate change, and a commitment to fighting injustice and inequality. Critical to the achievement of the Agenda is the global realization of access to safe, affordable surgical and anesthesia care when needed. The landmark report by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery estimated that between 28 and 32 percent of the global burden of disease is amenable to surgical treatment. However, as many as five billion people lack access to safe, timely, and affordable surgical care, a burden felt most severely in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Surgery, and specifically plastic surgery, should be incorporated into the international development and humanitarian agenda. As a community of care providers dedicated to the restoration of the form and function of the human body, plastics surgeons have a collective opportunity to contribute to global development, making the world more equitable and helping to reduce extreme poverty. As surgical disease comprises a significant burden of disease and surgery can be delivered in a cost-effective manner, surgery must be considered a public health priority.

Timely, affordable access to screened blood is essential to the provision of safe surgical care, and depends on three key aspects: adequate volume of blood supply, safe protocols for blood donation and transfusion, and appropriate regulation to ensure safe, equitable, and sustainable distribution. Many low- and middle-income countries experience a deficit in these categories, particularly in rural areas. We draw on the experience of rural surgical practitioners in India and summarize the existing literature to evaluate India’s blood banking system and discuss its major barriers to the safe and equitable provision of blood.

Many low- and middle-income countries struggle with accruing a sufficient voluntary, unpaid blood donation base to meet the need. Efforts to increase blood supply through mandatory family replacement donations can lead to dangerous delays in care provision. Additionally, prohibition of unbanked, directed blood transfusion restricts the options of health practitioners, particularly in rural areas. Blood safety is also a significant concern, and efforts must be taken to decrease the risk of transfusion-transmitted infections and inform and treat donors who test positive. Lastly, blood banking systems need a centralized governing body to ensure fair prices for blood, promote comprehensive transfusion reporting, and increase system-wide transparency and accountability.