| 1. |
- Martin, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining Major Surgery: A Delphi Consensus Among European Surgical Association (ESA) Members
- 2020
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0364-2313 .- 1432-2323. ; 44:7, s. 2211-2219
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2020, Société Internationale de Chirurgie. Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes.
|
|
| 2. |
- Spasovski, Goce, et al.
(författare)
-
Current status of transplantation and organ donation in the Balkans-could it be improved through the South-eastern European health Network (SEEHN) initiative?
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1460-2385 .- 0931-0509. ; 27:4, s. 1319-1323
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Organ donation and transplantation activity in the majority of Balkan countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) are lagging far behind international averages. Inadequate financial resources, unclear regional data and lack of governmental infrastructure are some of the issues which should be recognized to draw attention and problem-solving decisions. The Regional Health Development Centre (RHDC) Croatia, being a technical body of the South-eastern European Health Network (SEEHN), was created in 2011 after Croatia's great success in the field over the last 10 years. The aim of the RHDC is to network the region and provide individualized country support to increase donation and transplantation activity in collaboration with professional societies (European Society of Organ Transplantation, European Transplant Coordinators Organization, The Transplantation Society and International Society of Organ Donation and Procurement). Such an improvement would in turn likely prevent transplant tourism. The regional data from 2010 show large discrepancies in donation and transplantation activities within geographically neighbouring countries. Thus, proposed actions to improve regional donation and transplantation rates include advancing living and deceased donation through regular public education, creating current and accurate waiting lists and increasing number of educated transplant nephrologists and hospital coordinators. In addition to the effort from the professionals, the governmental support with allocated funds per deceased donation, updated legislation and established national coordinating body is ultimately recognized as essential for the successful donation and transplantation programmes. By continuous RHDC communication and support asked from the health authorities and motivated professionals from the SEEHN initiative, an increased number of deceased as well as living donor kidney transplantations in the future should be more realistic.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vonlanthen, René, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward a Consensus on Centralization in Surgery.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Annals of surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 268:5, s. 712-724
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To critically assess centralization policies for highly specialized surgeries in Europe and North America and propose recommendations.Most countries are increasingly forced to maintain quality medicine at a reasonable cost. An all-inclusive perspective, including health care providers, payers, society as a whole and patients, has ubiquitously failed, arguably for different reasons in environments. This special article follows 3 aims: first, analyze health care policies for centralization in different countries, second, analyze how centralization strategies affect patient outcome and other aspects such as medical education and cost, and third, propose recommendations for centralization, which could apply across continents.Conflicting interests have led many countries to compromise for a health care system based on factors beyond best patient-oriented care. Centralization has been a common strategy, but modalities vary greatly among countries with no consensus on the minimal requirement for the number of procedures per center or per surgeon. Most national policies are either partially or not implemented. Data overwhelmingly indicate that concentration of complex care or procedures in specialized centers have positive impacts on quality of care and cost. Countries requiring lower threshold numbers for centralization, however, may cause inappropriate expansion of indications, as hospitals struggle to fulfill the criteria. Centralization requires adjustments in training and credentialing of general and specialized surgeons, and patient education.There is an obvious need in most areas for effective centralization. Unrestrained, purely "market driven" approaches are deleterious to patients and society. Centralization should not be based solely on minimal number of procedures, but rather on the multidisciplinary treatment of complex diseases including well-trained specialists available around the clock. Audited prospective database with monitoring of quality of care and cost are mandatory.
|
|
