Trust Mushawarima’s scientific contributions

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (10)


Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †
  • Article
  • Full-text available

December 2022

·

2,995 Reads

The Lancet

James C. Glasbey

·

Tom Ef Abbott

·

·

[...]

·

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.

Download

Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

November 2022

·

3,908 Reads

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

November 2022

·

1,150 Reads

·

1 Citation

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

November 2022

·

654 Reads

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

November 2022

·

799 Reads

·

3 Citations

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries

November 2022

·

1,943 Reads

·

5 Citations

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs. Methods First, we performed an international consultation through a four-stage consensus process to develop a multidomain index for hospital-level assessment (surgical preparedness index; SPI). Second, we measured surgical preparedness across a global network of hospitals in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) to explore the distribution of the SPI at national, subnational, and hospital levels. Finally, using COVID-19 as an example of an external system shock, we compared hospitals' SPI to their planned surgical volume ratio (SVR; ie, operations for which the decision for surgery was made before hospital admission), calculated as the ratio of the observed surgical volume over a 1-month assessment period between June 6 and Aug 5, 2021, against the expected surgical volume based on hospital administrative data from the same period in 2019 (ie, a pre-pandemic baseline). A linear mixed-effects regression model was used to determine the effect of increasing SPI score. Findings In the first phase, from a longlist of 103 candidate indicators, 23 were prioritised as core indicators of elective surgical system preparedness by 69 clinicians (23 [33%] women; 46 [67%] men; 41 from HICs, 22 from MICs, and six from LICs) from 32 countries. The multidomain SPI included 11 indicators on facilities and consumables, two on staffing, two on prioritisation, and eight on systems. Hospitals were scored from 23 (least prepared) to 115 points (most prepared). In the second phase, surgical preparedness was measured in 1632 hospitals by 4714 clinicians from 119 countries. 745 (45·6%) of 1632 hospitals were in MICs or LICs. The mean SPI score was 84·5 (95% CI 84·1–84·9), which varied between HIC (88·5 [89·0–88·0]), MIC (81·8 [82·5–81·1]), and LIC (66·8 [64·9–68·7]) settings. In the third phase, 1217 (74·6%) hospitals did not maintain their expected SVR during the COVID-19 pandemic, of which 625 (51·4%) were from HIC, 538 (44·2%) from MIC, and 54 (4·4%) from LIC settings. In the mixed-effects model, a 10-point increase in SPI corresponded to a 3·6% (95% CI 3·0–4·1; p<0·0001) increase in SVR. This was consistent in HIC (4·8% [4·1–5·5]; p<0·0001), MIC (2·8 [2·0–3·7]; p<0·0001), and LIC (3·8 [1·3–6·7%]; p<0·0001) settings. Interpretation The SPI contains 23 indicators that are globally applicable, relevant across different system stressors, vary at a subnational level, and are collectable by front-line teams. In the case study of COVID-19, a higher SPI was associated with an increased planned surgical volume ratio independent of country income status, COVID-19 burden, and hospital type. Hospitals should perform annual self-assessment of their surgical preparedness to identify areas that can be improved, create resilience in local surgical systems, and upscale capacity to address elective surgery backlogs.


Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

October 2022

·

2,510 Reads

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Figure 1: Overview of study design IIDG=international guideline development group. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 2: Relevance of the surgical preparedness index to different external shocks Independent development group members were asked to rate the relevance of each surgical preparedness indicator following five different external health-care system shocks in their local context.
Figure 3: Geographical distribution of SPI score (A) Distribution displayed is centred around the mean value of SPI total score (84·5). Green indicates better prepared surgical systems; red indicates less prepared surgical systems. (B) Distribution of the SPI by country income group. The theoretical score range limits of the SPI were 23-115 points. The lowest mean hospital score was 26 and the highest was 115. These values are displayed at the floor and ceiling values of the x-axis. SPI=surgical preparedness index.
Figure 4: Mean ratings of hospitals across surgical preparedness indicators Scores are a mean following ratings from 1632 participants. Indicators are ordered from highest to lowest mean score (out of 5) overall by indicator.
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

October 2022

·

1,239 Reads

The Lancet

Background The 2015 Lancet Commission on global surgery identified surgery and anaesthesia as indispensable parts of holistic health-care systems. However, COVID-19 exposed the fragility of planned surgical services around the world, which have also been neglected in pandemic recovery planning. This study aimed to develop and validate a novel index to support local elective surgical system strengthening and address growing backlogs.


Figure 1 Flow diagram of patients showing venous thromboembolism (VTE), pneumonia, mortality and SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Table 2 (continued)
Baseline patient, disease and operative characteristics stratified by SARS-CoV-2 status. Values are number (proportion).
Unadjusted venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates by patient, disease and operative factors. Values are number (proportion).
Adjusted regression model for predictors for 30-day mortality. Values are fraction (proportion) or OR (95%CI)
SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

November 2021

·

18,024 Reads

·

4 Citations

Anaesthesia

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, thisstudy aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk ofvenous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre,prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020.Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venousthromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1–6 weeks beforesurgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operativeanti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism ratewas 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI1.1–2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2–3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism,with a borderlinefinding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9–3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism wasindependently associated with 30-day mortality (5.4 (95%CI 4.3–6.7)). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortalitywithout venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76).Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk ofpostoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and thesedata should be interpreted accordingly. (PDF) SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356161623_SARS-CoV-2_infection_and_venous_thromboembolism_after_surgery_an_international_prospective_cohort_study [accessed Nov 13 2021].


Figure 2 Adjusted 30-day postoperative mortality rates from main analysis, stratified by pre-defined sub-groups. 'No preoperative SARS-CoV-2' refers to patients without a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The time-periods relate to the timing of surgery following the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Full models and results are available in online Supporting Information (Appendix S1, Table S2).
Figure 3 Adjusted 30-day postoperative mortality rates in patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection stratified by COVID-19 symptoms. The time-periods relate to the timing of surgery following the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Full models and results are available in online Supporting Information (Appendix S1, Tables S7-S8).
Figure 4 Overall adjusted 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) rate from main analysis and sensitivity analysis for patients having elective surgery. 'No pre-operative SARS-CoV-2' refers to patients without a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The time-periods relate to the timing of surgery following the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Full models and results are shown in online Supporting Information (Appendix S1, Tables S9-S10).
Figure 5 Adjusted 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) rate in patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection stratified by COVID-19 symptoms. The time-periods relate to the timing of surgery following the diagnosis of SARSCoV-2 infection. Full model and results are available in online Supporting Information (Appendix S1, Tables S13-S14).
Unadjusted and adjusted model for 30-day postoperative mortality in all patients. Values are odds ratio (OR) (95%CI).
Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

March 2021

·

3,891 Reads

·

14 Citations

Anaesthesia

Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay. Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; delay; surgery; timing. © 2021 The Authors. Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.

Citations (4)


... Frightening, painful, and delusional memories during ICU stay are associated with anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress which lead to low quality of life among ICU survivors. 15,30 Appropriately addressing pain while patients are in the ICU is the first step towards addressing this problem. Another is targeting sedation practices that reduce the risk. ...

Reference:

Effect of Low-Dose Ketamine Infusion in the Intensive Care Unit on Postoperative Opioid Consumption and Traumatic Memories After Hospital Discharge: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries NIHR Global Health Unit on Global Surgery*, COVIDSurg Collaborative* †

The Lancet

... On the other hand, a competency-based and time-variable (CB-TV) approach has been successfully introduced and re ned GME programs in many countries (e.g., the UK, the Netherlands, Canada), presenting the paradigm shift in the education of the next generation of physicians [41,42]. Our ndings serve as a reference point, underscoring residents' needs and readiness to transition to CB-TV GME to galvanize healthcare systems against future crises [43,44,45,46,47,48]. ...

Elective surgery system strengthening: development, measurement, and validation of the surgical preparedness index across 1632 hospitals in 119 countries

The Lancet

... Thus, Fe limitation can limit the growth of Symbiodinium spp. (Rodriguez and Ho, 2018) as well as of marine phytoplankton (Sunda & Huntsman, 1997), as observed in our experiment for cells grown in depleted iron conditions (0 nM). An increase in the volume of Symbiodinium sp. cells was observed at the 10 nM Fe condition, indicating that lower Fe concentrations may facilitate cellular expansion. ...

SARS-CoV-2 infection and venous thromboembolism after surgery: an international prospective cohort study

Anaesthesia

... Kovoor et al. recommend 8-12-week delay post COVID-19 diagnosis [8], whereas a study conducted by Bryant et al. found that there was a 1% reduction in risk of developing postoperative complications for every 10 day delay [9]. Another study found that patients operated on within 6 weeks of a COVID-19 diagnosis were at an increased risk of 30-day postoperative mortality and 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications [10]. ...

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study.

Anaesthesia