Search

Background: A multitude of operative trauma courses exist, most of which are designed for and conducted in high-resource settings. There are numerous barriers to adapting such courses to low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs), including resource constraints and contextual variations in trauma care. Approaches to implementing operative trauma courses in LMICs have not been evaluated in a structured manner., Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the literature including databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE), grey literature repositories, and structured queries of publicly available course materials to identify records that described operative trauma courses offered since 2000., Results: The search identified 3,518 non-duplicative records, of which 48 relevant reports were included in analysis. These reports represented 23 named and 11 unnamed operative trauma courses offered in 12 countries. Variability existed in course format and resource requirements, ranging from USD 40 to 3,000 per participant. Courses incorporated didactic and laboratory components, which utilized simulations, cadavers, or live animals. Course content overlapped significantly but was not standardized. Data were lacking on course implementation and promulgation, credentialing of instructors, and standardized evaluation metrics., Conclusions: While many operative trauma courses have been described, most are not directly relatable to LMICs. Barriers include cost-prohibitive fees, lack of resources, limited data collection, and contextual variability that renders certain surgical care inappropriate in LMICs. Gaps exist in standardization of course content as well as transparency of credentialing and course implementation strategies. These issues can be addressed through developing an open-access operative trauma course for low-resource settings., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie.)

Introduction: Critical care in low-income and low-middle income countries (LLMICs) is an underdeveloped component of the healthcare system. Given the increasing growth in demand for critical care services in LLMICs, understanding the current capacity to provide critical care is imperative to inform policy on service expansion. Thus, our aim is to describe the provision of critical care in LLMICs with respect to patients, providers, location of care and services and interventions delivered., Methods and Analysis: We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE for full-text original research articles available in English describing critical care services that specify the location of service delivery and describe patients and interventions. We will restrict our review to populations from LLMICs (using 2016 World Bank classifications) and published from 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2020. Two-reviewer agreement will be required for both title/abstract and full text review stages, and rate of agreement will be calculated for each stage. We will extract data regarding the location of critical care service delivery, the training of the healthcare professionals providing services, and the illnesses treated according to classification by the WHO Universal Health Coverage Compendium., Ethics and Dissemination: Reviewed and exempted by the Stanford University Office for Human Subjects Research and IRB on 20 May 2020. The results of this review will be disseminated through scholarly publication and presentation at regional and international conferences. This review is designed to inform broader WHO, International Federation for Emergency Medicine and partner efforts to strengthen critical care globally., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42019146802., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: More than half of deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care - an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC) - through timely access to lifesaving interventions., Methods: The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from South Africa, Egypt, Nepal, Jamaica, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan, Malaysia, South Korea and Phillipines, USA and UK as a key step in gathering evidence required by policy makers and practitioners for the strengthening of emergency care systems in limited-resource settings., Results: The RPS proposed seven priority research questions addressing: identification of context-relevant emergency care indicators, barriers to effective emergency care; accuracy and impact of triage tools; potential quality improvement via registries; characteristics of people seeking emergency care; best practices for staff training and retention; and cost effectiveness of critical care - all within LMICs., Conclusions: Convened by WHO and facilitated by the University of Sheffield, the Global Emergency Care Research Network project (GEM-CARN) brought together a coalition of 16 countries to identify research priorities for strengthening emergency care in LMICs. Our article further assesses the quality of the RPS exercise and reviews the current evidence supporting the identified priorities.

Background: Despite the growing interest in the development of emergency care systems and emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty globally, there still exists a significant gap between the need for and the provision of emergency care by specialty trained providers. Many efforts to date to expand the practice of EM have focused on programs developed through partnerships between higher- and lower-resource settings., Objective: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the composition of EM training programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) developed through partnerships., Methods: An electronic search was conducted using four databases for manuscripts on EM training programs - defined as structured education and/or training in the methods, procedures, and techniques of acute or emergency care - developed through partnerships. The search produced 7702 results. Using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria, 94 manuscripts were included. After scoring these manuscripts, a more in-depth examination of 26 of the high-scoring manuscripts was conducted., Findings: Fifteen highlight programs with a focus on specific EM content (i.e. ultrasound) and 11 cover EM programs with broader scopes. All outline programs with diverse curricula and varied educational and evaluative methods spanning from short courses to full residency programs, and they target learners from medical students and nurses to mid-level providers and physicians. Challenges of EM program development through partnerships include local adaptation of international materials; addressing the local culture(s) of learning, assessment, and practice; evaluation of impact; sustainability; and funding., Conclusions: Overall, this review describes a diverse group of programs that have been or are currently being implemented through partnerships. Additionally, it highlights several areas for program development, including addressing other topic areas within EM beyond trauma and ultrasound and evaluating outcomes beyond the level of the learner. These steps to develop effective programs will further the advancement of EM as a specialty and enhance the development of effective emergency care systems globally., Competing Interests: Several of the reviewers were authors of manuscripts involved/included in the study. Reviewers did not screen or score their own manuscripts. The authors endorse no other competing interests regarding this review., (Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s).)

Objective: To systematically review and appraise the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses of emergency care interventions in low- and middle-income countries., Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed®, Scopus, EMBASE®, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies published before May 2019. Inclusion criteria were: (i) an original cost-effectiveness analysis of emergency care intervention or intervention package, and (ii) the analysis occurred in a low- and middle-income setting. To identify additional primary studies, we hand searched the reference lists of included studies. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline to appraise the quality of included studies., Results: Of the 1674 articles we identified, 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified an additional four studies from the reference lists. We excluded many studies for being deemed costing assessments without an effectiveness analysis. Most included studies were single-intervention analyses. Emergency care interventions evaluated by included studies covered prehospital services, provider training, treatment interventions, emergency diagnostic tools and facilities and packages of care. The reporting quality of the studies varied., Conclusion: We found large gaps in the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low- and middle-income settings. Given the breadth of interventions currently in practice, many interventions remain unassessed, suggesting the need for future research to aid resource allocation decisions. In particular, packages of multiple interventions and system-level changes represent a priority area for future research., ((c) 2020 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.)

Objective: To estimate the global and national burden of emergency conditions, and compare them to emergency care usage rates., Methods: We coded all 291 Global Burden of Disease 2010 conditions into three categories to estimate emergency burden: conditions that, if not addressed within hours to days of onset, commonly lead to serious disability or death; conditions with common acute decompensations that lead to serious disability or death; and non-emergencies. Emergency care usage rates were obtained from a systematic literature review on emergency care facilities in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), supplemented by national health system reports., Findings: All 15 leading causes of death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally were conditions with potential emergent manifestations. We identified 41 facility-based reports in 23 countries, 12 of which were in LMICs; data for 17 additional countries were obtained from national or regional reports on emergency usage. Burden of emergency conditions was the highest in low-income countries, with median DALYs of 47 728 per 100 000 population (IQR 45 253-50 085) in low-income, 25 186 (IQR 21 982-40 480) in middle-income and 15 691 (IQR 14 649-16 382) in high-income countries. Patterns were similar using deaths to measure burden and excluding acute decompensations from the definition of emergency conditions. Conversely, emergency usage rates were the lowest in low-income countries, with median 8 visits per 1000 population (IQR 6-10), 78 (IQR 25-197) in middle-income and 264 (IQR 177-341) in high-income countries., Conclusions: Despite higher burden of emergency conditions, emergency usage rates are substantially lower in LMICs, likely due to limited access to emergency care., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

The chief complaint is a patient's self-reported primary reason for presenting for medical care. The clinical utility and analytical importance of recording chief complaints have been widely accepted in highly developed emergency care systems, but this practice is far from universal in global emergency care, especially in limited-resource areas. It is precisely in these settings, however, that the use of chief complaints may have particular benefit. Chief complaints may be used to quantify, analyze, and plan for emergency care and provide valuable information on acute care needs where there are crucial data gaps. Globally, much work has been done to establish local practices around chief complaint collection and use, but no standards have been established and little work has been done to identify minimum effective sets of chief complaints that may be used in limited-resource settings. As part of the Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, "Global Health and Emergency Care: A Research Agenda," the breakout group on data management identified the lack of research on emergency chief complaints globally-especially in low-income countries where the highest proportion of the world's population resides-as a major gap in global emergency care research. This article reviews global research on emergency chief complaints in high-income countries with developed emergency care systems and sets forth an agenda for future research on chief complaints in limited-resource settings., (© 2013 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.)

ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL and World Health Organization (WHO) databases for reports describing facility-based emergency care and obtained unpublished data from a network of clinicians and researchers. We screened articles for inclusion based on their titles and abstracts in English or French. We extracted data on patient outcomes and demographics as well as facility and provider characteristics. Analyses were restricted to reports published from 1990 onwards.FindingsWe identified 195 reports concerning 192 facilities in 59 countries. Most were academically-affiliated hospitals in urban areas. The median mortality within emergency departments was 1.8% (interquartile range, IQR: 0.2-5.1%). Mortality was relatively high in paediatric facilities (median: 4.8%; IQR: 2.3-8.4%) and in sub-Saharan Africa (median: 3.4%; IQR: 0.5-6.3%). The median number of patients was 30 000 per year (IQR: 10 296-60 000), most of whom were young (median age: 35 years; IQR: 6.9-41.0) and male (median: 55.7%; IQR: 50.0-59.2%). Most facilities were staffed either by physicians-in-training or by physicians whose level of training was unspecified. Very few of these providers had specialist training in emergency care.ConclusionAvailable data on emergency care in LMICs indicate high patient loads and mortality, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where a substantial proportion of all deaths may occur in emergency departments. The combination of high volume and the urgency of treatment make emergency care an important area of focus for interventions aimed at reducing mortality in these settings.

Injury is a leading cause of death globally, and organized trauma care systems have been shown to save lives. However, even though most injuries occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), most trauma care research comes from high-income countries where systems have been implemented with few resource constraints. Little context-relevant guidance exists to help policy makers set priorities in LMICs, where resources are limited and where trauma care may be implemented in distinct ways. We have aimed to review the evidence on the impact of trauma care systems in LMICs through a systematic search of 11 databases. Reports were categorized by intervention and outcome type and summarized. Of 4,284 records retrieved, 71 reports from 32 countries met inclusion criteria. Training, prehospital systems, and overall system organization were the most commonly reported interventions. Quality-improvement, costing, rehabilitation, and legislation and governance were relatively neglected areas. Included reports may inform trauma care system planning in LMICs, and noted gaps may guide research and funding agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Academic Emergency Medicine is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective To understand the degree to which the trauma care guidelines released by the World Health Organization (WHO) between 2004 and 2009 have been used, and to identify priorities for the future implementation and dissemination of such guidelines. Methods We conducted a systematic review, across 19 databases, in which the titles of the three sets of guidelines -- Guidelines for essential trauma care, Prehospital trauma care systems and Guidelines for trauma quality improvement programmes -- were used as the search terms. Results were validated via citation analysis and expert consultation. Two authors independently reviewed each record of the guidelines' implementation. Findings We identified 578 records that provided evidence of dissemination of WHO trauma care guidelines and 101 information sources that together described 140 implementation events. Implementation evidence could be found for 51 countries -- 14 (40%) of the 35 low-income countries, 15 (32%) of the 47 lower-middle income, 15 (28%) of the 53 upper-middle-income and 7 (12%) of the 59 high-income. Of the 140 implementations, 63 (45%) could be categorized as needs assessments, 38 (27%) as endorsements by stakeholders, 20 (14%) as incorporations into policy and 19 (14%) as educational interventions. Conclusion Although WHO's trauma care guidelines have been widely implemented, no evidence was identified of their implementation in 143 countries. More serial needs assessments for the ongoing monitoring of capacity for trauma care in health systems and more incorporation of the guidelines into both the formal education of health-care providers and health policy are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]