M. B. Bhatia1, S. E. Cherukupalli2, K. J. Blair2, M. Boeck2,6,7, I. Helenowski2, S. Sharma8,9, B. Nwomeh4,10, M. B. Shapiro2, J. Thakur3, A. Bhalla3, M. Swaroop2 1Texas Tech University Health Science Center School Of Medicine,Lubbock, TX, USA 2Northwestern University Feinberg School Of Medicine,Division Of Trauma & Critical Care, Department Of Surgery,Chicago, IL, USA 3Postgraduate Institute Of Medicine Education And Research,Department Of Internal Medicine,Chandigarh, HARYANA, India 4Surgeons Overseas,New York, NY, USA 5Johns Hopkins University School Of Medicine,Department Of Surgery,Baltimore, MD, USA 6Brigham And Women’s Hospital,Boston, MA, USA 7New York Presbyterian Hospital – Columbia,Department Of Surgery,New York, NY, USA 8Boston Children’s Hospital,Department Of Plastic Surgery,Boston, MA, USA 9Harvard School Of Medicine,Department Of Global Health And Social Medicine,Brookline, MA, USA 10Nationwide Children’s Hospital,Columbus, OH, USA
Introduction:
Injuries account for 10% of all deaths worldwide and disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including India. These disparities can be partially attributed to scarce surgical, emergency response and trauma services. Evaluation of health facility surgical and trauma capacities aids in the identification and subsequent correction of deficiencies at each level of care. This study aimed to estimate the surgical and trauma care capacities of government health facilities in Nanakpur, a rural community of 40,000 people in Haryana, India, using a modified version of the Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment and Supplies (PIPES) tool, which includes additional questions from the International Assessment of Capacity for Trauma (INTACT) and Tool for Situational Analysis to Assess Emergency and Essential Trauma Care (TSAAEESC) survey instruments.
Methods:
In June 2015 the modified PIPES tool was administered to the eight government health facilities with at least one operating room in Nanakpur. Evaluated facilities included two primary health centers, one secondary-level community health center, four tertiary hospitals and one tertiary subspecialty hospital. At each location, a physician, hospital administrator or scrub nurse completed the survey, which evaluated personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies. Quantitative analyses were performed for each subsection and overall indices were calculated for PIPES and INTACT. Median scores were compared via Wilcoxon rank sum tests.
Results:
The eight facilities had a median of 250 beds (IQR 6.0-784.0), three general surgeons (IQR 0-15.0) and 2.5 anesthesiologists (IQR 0.5-22.5). No operative interventions were performed at the primary health centers and only selective surgical procedures (primarily C-sections and orthopedic procedures) were offered at the community health center. Median index scores were significantly higher for tertiary versus primary and community health centers: PIPES (10.667 vs. 4.19, p=0.03) and INTACT (9.25 vs. 3.75, p=0.03). The inconsistencies between the highest and two lower-levels of care were greatest in regards to personnel (15.0 vs. 0, p=0.02) and procedures (37.0 vs. 5.0, p=0.02), with general surgeons and non-obstetric abdominal surgery only available at four tertiary hospitals.
Conclusion:
Through the use of a modified version of PIPES, information was gathered on the availability of elements necessary for the delivery of essential surgical and trauma care. The stark contrast between primary/community and tertiary health care facilities is most evident in personnel and procedures, reflecting the all-too-common shortage of available services at lower-level facilities. Ideally, these results will guide resource allocation to ultimately improve surgical and trauma capabilities at all facility levels, thereby providing this rural Indian population with equitable access to timely, quality care.