World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 1335–1339 | Cite as

Intermittent and Mobile Surgical Services: Logistics and Outcomes

Article

Abstract

A program of intermittent surgical services utilized a mobile facility to support multiple primary care sites in Ecuador. The fiscal and clinical outcomes of the program were analyzed. From 1994 to 2003 the mobile program responded to requests from 15 of 22 provinces of Ecuador for surgical care. The sites served could not offer permanent surgical care. Criteria for inclusion and follow-up were set. Medical records were kept in accordance with standards of the Ministry of Health. Standards of care and critical care pathways were instituted. The program had a permanent staff supplemented by volunteers. Cases were recorded and outcomes noted with respect to complications. The cost of the surgical aspect of the program was entirely covered by a foundation through donations and public service contracts. Financial records of the foundation were reviewed and the costs analyzed. A total of 4545 operations were done largely in general surgery specialties. The program made 40 to 50 excursions each year and proved to be a stable element of medical care delivery. There were no deaths, four major complications, and three minor complications. The cost per operation was less than $100. Comparison to U.S. and international volunteer organizations are reported. This program of intermittent mobile surgical services in coordination with fixed primary care constitutes a sustainable, high quality clinical program fully integrated into existing care of a national health ministry. In-country resources may provide greatly enhanced services at low cost and should be considered as an alternative.

References

  1. 1.
    Rural Public Health: Issues and Considerations. A Report to the Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The National Advisory Committee on Rural Health. February 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Surgeons Statements of Principles. Accessed February 13, 2004 (http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/statement.html)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woodard SC. The AMSUS History of Military Medicine Essay Award: the story of the mobile army surgical hospital. Mil. Med. 2003;168:503–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bulletin from the UK Department of Health. UK—Speedier surgery for thousands of patients. Accessed January 13, 2004 (http://www.medicalnewstodav.com/index.php?newsid=5299)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loviglio J. Groups warn against mobile eye clinics (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/7206098.htm)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blanchard RJ, Merrell RC, Geelhoed GW, et al. Training to serve unmet surgical needs worldwide. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2001;193:417–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Operation smile. Accessed February 20, 2004 (http://www.operationsmile.org/aboutus/quickfacts.html)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Interplast. Accessed February 20, 2004 (http://www.interplast.org/donate/index.html)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. Ecuador. Accessed February 18, 2004 (http://www.who.int/country/ecu/en/)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cinterandes Foundation Summary Report 2003. February 2004. Cuenca, EcuadorGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edgar Rodas
    • 1
  • Anita Vicuña
    • 1
  • Ronald C. Merrell
    • 2
  1. 1.Cinterandes Foundation Cuenca
  2. 2.Medical Informatics and Technology Applications Consortium, Department of Surgery Virginia Commonwealth University RichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations