BMJ Global Health (Aug 2024)

Task-sharing spinal anaesthesia care in three rural Indian hospitals: a non-inferiority randomised controlled clinical trial

  • Alexander W Peters,
  • John G Meara,
  • Saurabh Saluja,
  • Isaac Wasserman,
  • Salim Afshar,
  • Simone Sandler,
  • Anudari Zorigtbaatar,
  • Craig D McClain,
  • David Ljungman,
  • Nakul Raykar,
  • Raman Kataria,
  • Emma Svensson,
  • Veena Sheshadri,
  • Regi George,
  • Nandakumar Menon,
  • Ravi Manoharan,
  • Meredith B. Brooks,
  • Alaska Pendleton,
  • Sudarshana Chatterjee,
  • Wesley Rajaleelan,
  • Jithen Krishnan,
  • Gnanaraj Jesudian

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014170
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 8

Abstract

Read online

Background Task-sharing of spinal anaesthesia care by non-specialist graduate physicians, termed medical officers (MOs), is commonly practised in rural Indian healthcare facilities to mitigate workforce constraints. We sought to assess whether spinal anaesthesia failure rates of MOs were non-inferior to those of consultant anaesthesiologists (CA) following a standardised educational curriculum.Methods We performed a randomised, non-inferiority trial in three rural hospitals in Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, India. Patients aged over 18 years with low perioperative risk (ASA I & II) were randomised to receive MO or CA care. Prior to the trial, MOs underwent task-based anaesthesia training, inclusive of remotely accessed lectures, simulation-based training and directly observed anaesthetic procedures and intraoperative care. The primary outcome measure was spinal anaesthesia failure with a non-inferiority margin of 5%. Secondary outcome measures consisted of incidence of perioperative and postoperative complications.Findings Between 12 July 2019 and 8 June 2020, a total of 422 patients undergoing surgical procedures amenable to spinal anaesthesia care were randomised to receive either MO (231, 54.7%) or CA care (191, 45.2%). Spinal anaesthesia failure rate for MOs (7, 3.0%) was non-inferior to those of CA (5, 2.6%); difference in success rate of 0.4% (95% CI=0.36–0.43%; p=0.80). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups for intraoperative or postoperative complications, or patients’ experience of pain during the procedure.Interpretation This study demonstrates that failure rates of spinal anaesthesia care provided by trained MOs are non-inferior to care provided by CAs in low-risk surgical patients. This may support policy measures that use task-sharing as a means of expanding anaesthesia care capacity in rural Indian hospitals.Trial registration number NCT04438811.