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.
METHOD: Post-basic students (staff nurses and medical assistants) were given real life pictures showing the wound and periwound area. The students were asked to classify all pictures according to the HPSC at zero months (before attachment) and after two months of attachment. The images were the same but the answers were never given or discussed after the first test.
RESULTS: A total of 30 post-basic students participated in the study, assessing wound 30 images. The results showed that there was an increase of 25.42% in accuracy of wound assessment using the HSPC after two months of clinical attachment compared to pre-attachment. The reliability of the HPSC in wound assessment 79.87%.
CONCLUSION: Health professionals have to be able to assess and classify wounds accurately to be able to manage them accordingly. Assessment and classifications of the periwound skin are important and need to be validated and integrated as a part of a full wound assessment. With experience and adequate training, health professionals are able to comprehensively assess wounds using the validated tool, to enable effective wound management and treatment, accelerating wound healing and improving the quality of life for patients.
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.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial was conducted with 58 patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and ALND, stratified into two groups: Group A (ALND + Haemoblock, n = 29) and Group B (ALND + placebo, n = 29). Postoperative drainage charts were monitored, with the primary endpoint being the time to drain removal, Additionally, patients were observed for surgical site infection (SSI).
RESULTS: Group A exhibited a marginally higher mean total drain output (398 +/- 205 vs. 326 +/- 198) compared to Group B, this difference did not attain statistical significance (p = 0.176). Equally, the mean time to drain removal demonstrated no discernible distinction between the two groups (6 +/- 3.0 vs. 6 +/- 3.0, Group A vs. Group B, p = 0.526). During follow up, nine patients in Group A required seroma aspiration (mean aspiration 31 +/- 73) as compared to Group B, 6 patients required aspiration (mean aspiration 12 +/- 36), p = 0.222). No notable disparity in SSI rates between the groups was identified.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the administration of Haemoblock did not manifest a discernible effect in mitigating seroma production, hastening drain removal, or influencing SSI rates following ALND. The study underscores the intricate and multifactorial nature of seroma formation, suggesting avenues for future research to explore combined interventions and protracted follow-up periods for a more comprehensive understanding.