Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya
Anesthetic monitoring within standards defined by various professional anesthesia organizations has been shown to reduce perioperative mortality. Given the scarce resources for anesthesia and surgery in low- to middle-income countries, we sought to determine the availability of recommended monitorin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anesthesia and analgesia 2023-09, Vol.137 (3), p.648-655 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 655 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 648 |
container_title | Anesthesia and analgesia |
container_volume | 137 |
creator | Atandi, Bryan Ogoti Chokwe, Thomas Muinga Sulemanji, Demet Sargin |
description | Anesthetic monitoring within standards defined by various professional anesthesia organizations has been shown to reduce perioperative mortality. Given the scarce resources for anesthesia and surgery in low- to middle-income countries, we sought to determine the availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya.
We purposely selected the 16 major referral hospitals in Kenya. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 103 operating theaters, 96 postanesthesia care unit (PACU) beds, and 16 areas where procedural sedation was routinely administered. A checklist questionnaire based on the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines of 2015 was used to determine the availability of basic and functional monitoring devices.
We determined that only 1 of 16 (6.25%) hospitals had all the monitoring devices recommended by the AAGBI. Automated noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring and pulse oximetry were present in all operating theaters. Continuous electrocardiography (ECG) was available in 102 of 103 (99%) operating theaters, skin temperature monitoring probes in 73 of 103 (70.9%), and capnography in 49 (47.6%). A nerve stimulator was accessible in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals. There were functional patient monitors in all operating theaters (100%). One of the regional referral hospitals did not have a PACU. We encountered 9 of 96 (9.4%) PACU beds without any monitoring devices. Pulse oximetry was the most common device (84.4%) in the PACU beds equipped with monitoring. In 5 of 16 (31.25%) procedural sedation areas, pulse oximetry was the only monitoring device, whereas there were no devices in 2 of 16 (12.5%) areas. Portable multiparameter devices used for patient transport were present in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals.
The availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya is inadequate. Thus, there are challenges to anesthetic monitoring in these hospitals, and perioperative patient safety is jeopardized. We recommend the universal provision of basic monitoring devices and suggest the use of the data collected in this study to affect policy change and safe anesthesia practice in our country. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006287 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2773122018</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2773122018</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3478-3a9f6e3684d741bfb52aec155c13d49a412b7696e8553fcf32ff3930ca9affb23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkd1uGyEQhVHVqHHSvkFVcdmbTRdYWOidZTk_ip1KVXu9YneHmJQFB9hYfoK-dtey-6Nyg2Y45xsNB6H3pLwilLBP84flVfnPEVTWr9CMcCqKmiv5Gs2mLiuoUuocXaT0NJWklOINOmeiZqWQ9Qz9XGy0c-AfIeFg8NxDyhvItsPr4G0O0fpHbD1ehV2Bte_x2va9g-LOd2EAvAijz9FC-oznL9o63Vpn8_6AWj6PdjuAzwf7Wj-FiL-CgRi1w7chbW3WLh3e7sHv9Vt0ZqYa3p3uS_T9evltcVusvtzcLearomNVLQumlRHAhKz6uiKtaTnV0BHOO8L6SumK0LYWSoDknJnOMGoMU6zstNLGtJRdoo9H7jaG53Fathls6sA57SGMqaF1zQilJZGTtDpKuxhSimCabbSDjvuGlM0hgmaKoPk_gsn24TRhbAfo_5h-__lf7i64DDH9cOMOYrMB7fLmyONMFUqdqEVZVlyyX5tkkiI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2773122018</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti ; Chokwe, Thomas Muinga ; Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</creator><creatorcontrib>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti ; Chokwe, Thomas Muinga ; Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</creatorcontrib><description>Anesthetic monitoring within standards defined by various professional anesthesia organizations has been shown to reduce perioperative mortality. Given the scarce resources for anesthesia and surgery in low- to middle-income countries, we sought to determine the availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya.
We purposely selected the 16 major referral hospitals in Kenya. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 103 operating theaters, 96 postanesthesia care unit (PACU) beds, and 16 areas where procedural sedation was routinely administered. A checklist questionnaire based on the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines of 2015 was used to determine the availability of basic and functional monitoring devices.
We determined that only 1 of 16 (6.25%) hospitals had all the monitoring devices recommended by the AAGBI. Automated noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring and pulse oximetry were present in all operating theaters. Continuous electrocardiography (ECG) was available in 102 of 103 (99%) operating theaters, skin temperature monitoring probes in 73 of 103 (70.9%), and capnography in 49 (47.6%). A nerve stimulator was accessible in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals. There were functional patient monitors in all operating theaters (100%). One of the regional referral hospitals did not have a PACU. We encountered 9 of 96 (9.4%) PACU beds without any monitoring devices. Pulse oximetry was the most common device (84.4%) in the PACU beds equipped with monitoring. In 5 of 16 (31.25%) procedural sedation areas, pulse oximetry was the only monitoring device, whereas there were no devices in 2 of 16 (12.5%) areas. Portable multiparameter devices used for patient transport were present in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals.
The availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya is inadequate. Thus, there are challenges to anesthetic monitoring in these hospitals, and perioperative patient safety is jeopardized. We recommend the universal provision of basic monitoring devices and suggest the use of the data collected in this study to affect policy change and safe anesthesia practice in our country.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2999</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-7598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006287</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36730687</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkin</publisher><subject>Anesthetics ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Developing Countries ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Kenya ; Referral and Consultation</subject><ispartof>Anesthesia and analgesia, 2023-09, Vol.137 (3), p.648-655</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkin</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3478-3a9f6e3684d741bfb52aec155c13d49a412b7696e8553fcf32ff3930ca9affb23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&NEWS=n&CSC=Y&PAGE=fulltext&D=ovft&AN=00000539-990000000-00458$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwolterskluwer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,4595,27905,27906,65212</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36730687$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chokwe, Thomas Muinga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</creatorcontrib><title>Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya</title><title>Anesthesia and analgesia</title><addtitle>Anesth Analg</addtitle><description>Anesthetic monitoring within standards defined by various professional anesthesia organizations has been shown to reduce perioperative mortality. Given the scarce resources for anesthesia and surgery in low- to middle-income countries, we sought to determine the availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya.
We purposely selected the 16 major referral hospitals in Kenya. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 103 operating theaters, 96 postanesthesia care unit (PACU) beds, and 16 areas where procedural sedation was routinely administered. A checklist questionnaire based on the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines of 2015 was used to determine the availability of basic and functional monitoring devices.
We determined that only 1 of 16 (6.25%) hospitals had all the monitoring devices recommended by the AAGBI. Automated noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring and pulse oximetry were present in all operating theaters. Continuous electrocardiography (ECG) was available in 102 of 103 (99%) operating theaters, skin temperature monitoring probes in 73 of 103 (70.9%), and capnography in 49 (47.6%). A nerve stimulator was accessible in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals. There were functional patient monitors in all operating theaters (100%). One of the regional referral hospitals did not have a PACU. We encountered 9 of 96 (9.4%) PACU beds without any monitoring devices. Pulse oximetry was the most common device (84.4%) in the PACU beds equipped with monitoring. In 5 of 16 (31.25%) procedural sedation areas, pulse oximetry was the only monitoring device, whereas there were no devices in 2 of 16 (12.5%) areas. Portable multiparameter devices used for patient transport were present in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals.
The availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya is inadequate. Thus, there are challenges to anesthetic monitoring in these hospitals, and perioperative patient safety is jeopardized. We recommend the universal provision of basic monitoring devices and suggest the use of the data collected in this study to affect policy change and safe anesthesia practice in our country.</description><subject>Anesthetics</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Developing Countries</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Kenya</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation</subject><issn>0003-2999</issn><issn>1526-7598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkd1uGyEQhVHVqHHSvkFVcdmbTRdYWOidZTk_ip1KVXu9YneHmJQFB9hYfoK-dtey-6Nyg2Y45xsNB6H3pLwilLBP84flVfnPEVTWr9CMcCqKmiv5Gs2mLiuoUuocXaT0NJWklOINOmeiZqWQ9Qz9XGy0c-AfIeFg8NxDyhvItsPr4G0O0fpHbD1ehV2Bte_x2va9g-LOd2EAvAijz9FC-oznL9o63Vpn8_6AWj6PdjuAzwf7Wj-FiL-CgRi1w7chbW3WLh3e7sHv9Vt0ZqYa3p3uS_T9evltcVusvtzcLearomNVLQumlRHAhKz6uiKtaTnV0BHOO8L6SumK0LYWSoDknJnOMGoMU6zstNLGtJRdoo9H7jaG53Fathls6sA57SGMqaF1zQilJZGTtDpKuxhSimCabbSDjvuGlM0hgmaKoPk_gsn24TRhbAfo_5h-__lf7i64DDH9cOMOYrMB7fLmyONMFUqdqEVZVlyyX5tkkiI</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti</creator><creator>Chokwe, Thomas Muinga</creator><creator>Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkin</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya</title><author>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti ; Chokwe, Thomas Muinga ; Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3478-3a9f6e3684d741bfb52aec155c13d49a412b7696e8553fcf32ff3930ca9affb23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Anesthetics</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Developing Countries</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Kenya</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chokwe, Thomas Muinga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anesthesia and analgesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Atandi, Bryan Ogoti</au><au>Chokwe, Thomas Muinga</au><au>Sulemanji, Demet Sargin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya</atitle><jtitle>Anesthesia and analgesia</jtitle><addtitle>Anesth Analg</addtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>137</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>648</spage><epage>655</epage><pages>648-655</pages><issn>0003-2999</issn><eissn>1526-7598</eissn><abstract>Anesthetic monitoring within standards defined by various professional anesthesia organizations has been shown to reduce perioperative mortality. Given the scarce resources for anesthesia and surgery in low- to middle-income countries, we sought to determine the availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya.
We purposely selected the 16 major referral hospitals in Kenya. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 103 operating theaters, 96 postanesthesia care unit (PACU) beds, and 16 areas where procedural sedation was routinely administered. A checklist questionnaire based on the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) guidelines of 2015 was used to determine the availability of basic and functional monitoring devices.
We determined that only 1 of 16 (6.25%) hospitals had all the monitoring devices recommended by the AAGBI. Automated noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitoring and pulse oximetry were present in all operating theaters. Continuous electrocardiography (ECG) was available in 102 of 103 (99%) operating theaters, skin temperature monitoring probes in 73 of 103 (70.9%), and capnography in 49 (47.6%). A nerve stimulator was accessible in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals. There were functional patient monitors in all operating theaters (100%). One of the regional referral hospitals did not have a PACU. We encountered 9 of 96 (9.4%) PACU beds without any monitoring devices. Pulse oximetry was the most common device (84.4%) in the PACU beds equipped with monitoring. In 5 of 16 (31.25%) procedural sedation areas, pulse oximetry was the only monitoring device, whereas there were no devices in 2 of 16 (12.5%) areas. Portable multiparameter devices used for patient transport were present in 5 of 16 (31.25%) hospitals.
The availability of recommended monitoring devices in major referral hospitals in Kenya is inadequate. Thus, there are challenges to anesthetic monitoring in these hospitals, and perioperative patient safety is jeopardized. We recommend the universal provision of basic monitoring devices and suggest the use of the data collected in this study to affect policy change and safe anesthesia practice in our country.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkin</pub><pmid>36730687</pmid><doi>10.1213/ANE.0000000000006287</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-2999 |
ispartof | Anesthesia and analgesia, 2023-09, Vol.137 (3), p.648-655 |
issn | 0003-2999 1526-7598 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2773122018 |
source | MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Anesthetics Cross-Sectional Studies Developing Countries Hospitals Humans Kenya Referral and Consultation |
title | Challenges of Anesthetic Monitoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Availability of Equipment in Major Referral Hospitals in Kenya |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T01%3A24%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Challenges%20of%20Anesthetic%20Monitoring%20in%20Low-%20and%20Middle-Income%20Countries:%20Availability%20of%20Equipment%20in%20Major%20Referral%20Hospitals%20in%20Kenya&rft.jtitle=Anesthesia%20and%20analgesia&rft.au=Atandi,%20Bryan%20Ogoti&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=648&rft.epage=655&rft.pages=648-655&rft.issn=0003-2999&rft.eissn=1526-7598&rft_id=info:doi/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006287&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2773122018%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2773122018&rft_id=info:pmid/36730687&rfr_iscdi=true |