Key result
A national survey of 36 public surgical hospitals in Guatemala revealed significant deficiencies in anesthesia capacity, including a physician anesthesiologist density of 0.8/100,000 population.
Why the study?
Whether international standards for safe anesthetic care developed by the WFSA and WHO are met was unknown in Guatemala.
Cross-Sectional (n=36)
Yes
A national assessment of public surgical hospitals in Guatemala reveals critical deficiencies in anesthesia workforce, essential medications, and monitoring equipment, highlighting the need for policy interventions to ensure safe surgical care.
Supports urgent policy interventions for anesthesia capacity in Guatemala; leaves open associations with surgical safety outcomes.
BACKGROUND: International standards for safe anesthetic care have been developed by the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Whether these standards are met is unknown in many nations, including Guatemala, a country with universal health coverage. We aimed to establish an overview of anesthesia care capacity in public surgical hospitals in Guatemala to help guide public sector health care development. METHODS: In partnership with the Guatemalan Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance (MSPAS), a national survey of all public hospitals providing surgical care was conducted using the WFSA anesthesia facility assessment tool (AFAT) in 2018. Each facility was assessed for infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, medications, equipment, and monitoring practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated and presented. RESULTS: Of the 46 public hospitals in Guatemala in 2018, 36 (78%) were found to provide surgical care, including 20 district, 14 regional, and 2 national referral hospitals. We identified 573 full-time physician surgeons, anesthesiologists, and obstetricians (SAO) in the public sector, with an estimated SAO density of 3.3/100,000 population. There were 300 full-time anesthesia providers working at public hospitals. Physician anesthesiologists made up 47% of these providers, with an estimated physician anesthesiologist density of 0.8/100,000 population. Only 10% of district hospitals reported having an anesthesia provider continuously present intraoperatively during general or neuraxial anesthesia cases. No hospitals reported assessing pain in the immediate postoperative period. While the availability of some medications such as benzodiazepines and local anesthetics was robust (100% availability across all hospitals), not all hospitals had essential medications such as ketamine, epinephrine, or atropine. There were deficiencies in the availability of essential equipment and basic intraoperative monitors, such as end-tidal carbon dioxide detectors (17% availability across all hospitals). Postoperative care and access to resuscitative equipment, such as defibrillators, were also lacking. CONCLUSIONS: This first countrywide, MSPAS-led assessment of anesthesia capacity at public facilities in Guatemala revealed a lack of essential materials and personnel to provide safe anesthesia and surgery. Hospitals surveyed often did not have resources regardless of hospital size or level, which may suggest multiple factors preventing availability and use. Local and national policy initiatives are needed to address these deficiencies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zha et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Anesthesia care capacity (n=36). Anesthesia capacity assessment was evaluated on Anesthesia care capacity (infrastructure, service delivery, workforce, medications, equipment, and monitoring practices). A national survey of 36 public surgical hospitals in Guatemala revealed significant deficiencies in anesthesia capacity, including a physician anesthesiologist density of 0.8/100,000 population.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: