Search

Capnometry, the measurement of respiratory carbon dioxide, is regarded as a highly recommended safety technology in intubated and nonintubated sedated and/or anesthetized patients. Its utility includes confirmation of initial and ongoing placement of an airway device as well as in detecting gas exchange, bronchospasm, airway obstruction, reduced cardiac output, and metabolic changes. The utility applies prehospital and throughout all phases of inhospital care. Unfortunately, capnometry devices are not readily available in many countries, especially those that are resource-limited. Constraining factors include cost, durability of devices, availability of consumables, lack of dependable power supply, difficulty with cleaning, and maintenance. There is, thus, an urgent need for all stakeholders to come together to develop, market, and distribute appropriate devices that address costs and other requirements. To foster this process, the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) has developed the "WFSA-Minimum Capnometer Specifications 2021." The intent of the specifications is to set the minimum that would be acceptable from industry in their attempts to reduce costs while meeting other needs in resource-constrained regions. The document also includes very desirable and preferred options. The intent is to stimulate interest and engagement among industry, clinical providers, professional associations, and ministries of health to address this important patient safety need. The WFSA-Minimum Capnometer Specifications 2021 is based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) capnometer specifications. While industry is familiar with such specifications and their presentation format, most clinicians are not; therefore, this article serves to more clearly explain the requirements. In addition, the specifications as described can be used as a purchasing guide by clinicians., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2021 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Background: Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally., Methods and Findings: The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees., Conclusions: To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Tore Laerdal is Executive Director of the Laerdal Foundation, which provided financial support for the meeting. Tore provided practical support for the meeting and read and approved the manuscript, but did not input into the consensus process or conclusions.

Background: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives., Methods: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants., Results: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations., Discussion: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs])., Methods: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach., Results: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon., Conclusions: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients., (Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

After decades on the margins of primary health care, surgical and anaesthesia care is gaining increasing priority within the global development arena. The 2015 publications of the Disease Control Priorities third edition on Essential Surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery created a compelling evidenced-based argument for the fundamental role of surgery and anaesthesia within cost-effective health systems strengthening global strategy. The launch of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care in 2015 has further coordinated efforts to build priority for surgical care and anaesthesia. These combined efforts culminated in the approval of a World Health Assembly resolution recognizing the role of surgical care and anaesthesia as part of universal health coverage. Momentum gained from these milestones highlights the need to identify consensus goals, targets and indicators to guide policy implementation and track progress at the national level. Through an open consultative process that incorporated input from stakeholders from around the globe, a global target calling for safe surgical and anaesthesia care for 80% of the world by 2030 was proposed. In order to achieve this target, we also propose 15 consensus indicators that build on existing surgical systems metrics and expand the ability to prioritize surgical systems strengthening around the world.

Background: Safe anesthesia and surgical care are not available when needed for 5 billion of the world's 7 billion people. There are major deficiencies in the specialist surgical workforce in many parts of the world, and specific data on the anesthesia workforce are lacking., Methods: The World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists conducted a workforce survey during 2015 and 2016. The aim of the survey was to collect detailed information on physician anesthesia provider (PAP) and non-physician anesthesia provider (NPAP) numbers, distribution, and training. Data were categorized according to World Health Organization regional groups and World Bank income groups., Results: We obtained information for 153 of 197 countries, representing 97.5% of the world's population. There were marked differences in the density of PAPs between World Health Organization regions and between World Bank income groups, ranging from 0 to over 20 PAP per 100,000 population. Seventy-seven countries reported a PAP density of <5, with particularly low densities in the African and South-East Asia regions. NPAPs make up a large part of the global anesthesia workforce, especially in countries with limited resources. Even when NPAPs are included, 70 countries had a total anesthesia provider density of <5 per 100,000. Using current population data, over 136,000 additional PAPs would be needed immediately to achieve a minimum density of 5 per 100,000 population in all countries., Conclusions: The World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists Global Anesthesia Workforce Survey is the most comprehensive study of the global anesthesia workforce to date. It is the first step in a process of ongoing data collection and longitudinal follow-up. The authors recommend an interim goal of at least 5 specialist physician anesthesia providers (anesthesiologists) per 100,000 population. A marked increase in training of PAPs and NPAPs will need to occur if we are to have any hope of achieving safe anesthesia for all by 2030.

In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative:The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care.The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation.The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are:Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life.Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments.Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Context: High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice., Objective: The aim of this article is to describe the process of involving patients in the consensus process and in developing the patient summary of the consensus for colon and rectal cancer care., Methods: The Delphi method for achieving consensus was used. Three online voting rounds and one tele-voting round were offered to an expert panel of oncology professionals and patient representatives. At four different stages, patients and/or patient representatives were involved in the process: (1) during the consensus process, (2) lecturing about the role of the patient, (3) development of the patient summary, and (4) testing the patient summary., Results: Representatives were invited to the voting and commenting rounds of this process and given an equal vote. Although patients were not consulted during the planning stages of this process, patient involvement increased following the panel's discussion of the implementation of the consensus among the patient population. After the consensus meeting, the patient summary was written by patient representatives, oncologists and nurses. A selection of proactive patients reviewed the draft patient summary; responses were positive and several patient-reported outcomes were added. Questionnaires to evaluate the use and implementation of the patient summary in daily practice are currently being developed and tested. Patient consultation will be needed in future planning for selection of topics., Discussion: The present study may function as a model for future consensus processes to involve patients at different stages and to implement both patient and healthcare professional versions in daily practice.

Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries., Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process., Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members., Conclusions: Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last twenty years however still considerable variation exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of cancer care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012 the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about colon and rectum was held looking for multidisciplinary consensus. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries., Methods: The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Experts commented and voted on the two web-based online voting rounds before the meeting (between 4th and 25th October and between the 20th November and 3rd December 2012) as well as one online round after the meeting (4th-20th March 2013) and were invited to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. All sentences that were voted on are available on the EURECCA website www.canceraudit.eu. The consensus document was divided in sections describing evidence based algorithms of diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and stage IV separately. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method., Results: The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members., Conclusions: It is feasible to achieve European Consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues using the Delphi method. This consensus embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)