IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/120164.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the impact of anaesthetic and surgical task-shifting globally: a systematic literature review

Author

Listed:
  • Bognini, Maeve S
  • Oko, Christian I
  • Kebede, Meskerem A
  • Ifeanyichi, Martilord I
  • Singh, Darshita
  • Hargest, Rachel
  • Friebel, Rocco

Abstract

The global shortage of skilled anaesthesiologists, surgeons and obstetricians is a leading cause of high unmet surgical need. Although anaesthetic and surgical task-shifting are widely practised to mitigate this barrier, little is known about their safety and efficacy. This systematic review seeks to highlight the existing evidence on the clinical outcomes of patients operated on by non-physicians or non-specialist physicians globally. Relevant articles were identified by searching four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Global Health) in all languages between January 2008 and February 2022. Retrieved documents were screened against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria, and their qualities were appraised critically. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and findings were synthesized narratively. In total, 40 studies have been included. Thirty-five focus on task-shifting for surgical and obstetric procedures, whereas four studies address anaesthetic task-shifting; one study covers both interventions. The majority are located in sub-Saharan Africa and the USA. Seventy-five per cent present perioperative mortality outcomes and 85% analyse morbidity measures. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries, which primarily concentrates on caesarean sections, hernia repairs and surgical male circumcisions, points to the overall safety of non-surgeons. On the other hand, the literature on surgical task-shifting in high-income countries (HICs) is limited to nine studies analysing tube thoracostomies, neurosurgical procedures, caesarean sections, male circumcisions and basal cell carcinoma excisions. Finally, only five studies pertaining to anaesthetic task-shifting across all country settings answer the research question with conflicting results, making it difficult to draw conclusions on the quality of non-physician anaesthetic care. Overall, it appears that non-specialists can safely perform high-volume, low-complexity operations. Further research is needed to understand the implications of surgical task-shifting in HICs and to better assess the performance of non-specialist anaesthesia providers. Future studies must adopt randomized study designs and include long-term outcome measures to generate high-quality evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Bognini, Maeve S & Oko, Christian I & Kebede, Meskerem A & Ifeanyichi, Martilord I & Singh, Darshita & Hargest, Rachel & Friebel, Rocco, 2023. "Assessing the impact of anaesthetic and surgical task-shifting globally: a systematic literature review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120164, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/120164/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    global surgery; anaesthesia workforce; surgical workforce; task-shifting; human resources for health; non-specialist physicians; non-physician clinicians; healthcare delivery;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:120164. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.