Objectives: This study sought to investigate the quality of antimicrobial prescribing among adult surgical inpatients besides exploring the determinants of non-compliance and inappropriate prescribing to inform stewardship activities. Methods: A cross-sectional point prevalence study employing Hospital National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey (Hospital NAPS) was conducted in April 2019 at two teaching hospitals in Malaysia. Results: Among 566 surgical inpatients, 44.2% were receiving at least one antimicrobial, for a total of 339 prescriptions. Antimicrobials belonging to the World Health Organization's Watch group were observed in 57.8% of cases. Both hospitals exhibited similar types of antimicrobial treatments prescribed and administration routes. A significant difference in antimicrobial choice was observed between hospitals (p < 0.001). Hospital with electronic prescribing demonstrated better documentation practice (p < 0.001). Guidelines compliance, 32.8% (p = 0.952) and appropriateness, 55.2% (p = 0.561) did not significantly differ. The major contributors of inappropriateness were incorrect duration, (15%) and unnecessary broad-spectrum coverage, (15.6%). Non-compliance and inappropriate prescribing were found to be 2 to 4 times significantly higher with antimicrobial prophylaxis prescription compared to empirical therapy. Conclusion: Antimicrobial stewardship efforts to improve appropriate surgical prescribing are essential. These initiatives should prioritize surgical prophylaxis prescribing, focusing on reducing unnecessarily prolonged use and broad-spectrum antimicrobials, raising awareness among prescribers and promoting proper documentation.
With a lot of uncertainty, unclear, and frequently changing management protocols, COVID-19 has significantly impacted the orthopaedic surgical practice during this pandemic crisis. Surgeons around the world needed closed introspection, contemplation, and prospective consensual recommendations for safe surgical practice and prevention of viral contamination. One hundred orthopaedic surgeons from 50 countries were sent a Google online form with a questionnaire explicating protocols for admission, surgeries, discharge, follow-up, relevant information affecting their surgical practices, difficulties faced, and many more important issues that happened during and after the lockdown. Ten surgeons critically construed and interpreted the data to form rationale guidelines and recommendations. Of the total, hand and microsurgery surgeons (52%), trauma surgeons (32%), joint replacement surgeons (20%), and arthroscopy surgeons (14%) actively participated in the survey. Surgeons from national public health care/government college hospitals (44%) and private/semiprivate practitioners (54%) were involved in the study. Countries had lockdown started as early as January 3, 2020 with the implementation of partial or complete lifting of lockdown in few countries while writing this article. Surgeons (58%) did not stop their surgical practice or clinics but preferred only emergency cases during the lockdown. Most of the surgeons (49%) had three-fourths reduction in their total patients turn-up and the remaining cases were managed by conservative (54%) methods. There was a 50 to 75% reduction in the number of surgeries. Surgeons did perform emergency procedures without COVID-19 tests but preferred reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR; 77%) and computed tomography (CT) scan chest (12%) tests for all elective surgical cases. Open fracture and emergency procedures (60%) and distal radius (55%) fractures were the most commonly performed surgeries. Surgeons preferred full personal protection equipment kits (69%) with a respirator (N95/FFP3), but in the case of unavailability, they used surgical masks and normal gowns. Regional/local anesthesia (70%) remained their choice for surgery to prevent the aerosolized risk of contaminations. Essential surgical follow-up with limited persons and visits was encouraged by 70% of the surgeons, whereas teleconsultation and telerehabilitation by 30% of the surgeons. Despite the protective equipment, one-third of the surgeons were afraid of getting infected and 56% feared of infecting their near and dear ones. Orthopaedic surgeons in private practice did face 50 to 75% financial loss and have to furlough 25% staff and 50% paramedical persons. Orthopaedics meetings were cancelled, and virtual meetings have become the preferred mode of sharing the knowledge and experiences avoiding human contacts. Staying at home, reading, and writing manuscripts became more interesting and an interesting lifestyle change is seen among the surgeons. Unanimously and without any doubt all accepted the fact that COVID-19 pandemic has reached an unprecedented level where personal hygiene, hand washing, social distancing, and safe surgical practices are the viable antidotes, and they have all slowly integrated these practices into their lives. Strict adherence to local authority recommendations and guidelines, uniform and standardized norms for admission, inpatient, and discharge, mandatory RT-PCR tests before surgery and in selective cases with CT scan chest, optimizing and regularizing the surgeries, avoiding and delaying nonemergency surgeries and follow-up protocols, use of teleconsultations cautiously, and working in close association with the World Health Organization and national health care systems will provide a conducive and safe working environment for orthopaedic surgeons and their fraternity and also will prevent the resurgence of COVID-19.
Since 2000, many countries have achieved considerable success in improving child survival, but localized progress remains unclear. To inform efforts towards United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3.2-to end preventable child deaths by 2030-we need consistently estimated data at the subnational level regarding child mortality rates and trends. Here we quantified, for the period 2000-2017, the subnational variation in mortality rates and number of deaths of neonates, infants and children under 5 years of age within 99 low- and middle-income countries using a geostatistical survival model. We estimated that 32% of children under 5 in these countries lived in districts that had attained rates of 25 or fewer child deaths per 1,000 live births by 2017, and that 58% of child deaths between 2000 and 2017 in these countries could have been averted in the absence of geographical inequality. This study enables the identification of high-mortality clusters, patterns of progress and geographical inequalities to inform appropriate investments and implementations that will help to improve the health of all populations.