Search

IntroductionOn 24 February 2022, Russia launched a large-scale offensive in Ukraine, resulting in significant casualties to civilians, including children. As part of a seven-stream trauma education initiative, a novel pediatric trauma fundamentals course (PTF) was developed to provide standalone pediatric trauma education by our academic/NGO partnership. The objective of the program was to develop, implement, and evaluate a novel PTF educational course in the active armed conflict zone of Ukraine.MethodsA novel two-day PTF course was internally developed, translated into Ukrainian, and implemented across eight Oblasts (regions) in Ukraine from November 2022 to December 2023. Participants completed pre-and post-assessments in knowledge and self-confidence, and critical skills were assessed against objective skill checklists. Change in knowledge and self-confidence were analyzed, respectively, with the nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test and McNemar’s test for paired data. Anonymous course evaluations were solicited after each course. Six to eight-week follow-up surveys were conducted to assess skill utilization and stewardship.ResultsFour hundred and forty-six Ukrainian health care providers were trained during 30 courses across 8 Oblasts in Ukraine during the intervention period. Aggregated knowledge and self-confidence significantly improved across all measures. Ukrainian instructors of courses received higher raw scores across all evaluation points on instructor feedback surveys as compared to international instructors. Six to eight-week follow-up surveys demonstrated participants had positive views of the training, have used the training on patients, and have taught the material to other health care providers.DiscussionOur novel PTF intervention demonstrates a successful partnership-based model for implementing pediatric trauma education in an active conflict zone in Ukraine. Challenges to implementing such programs can be mitigated through strategic partnership-based models between academic institutions and organizations with local knowledge and expertise. Ukrainian instructors provide course experiences similar or superior to international instructors, likely due to multiple factors related to language, culture, and context.

Objective The specialty of emergency medicine and recognition of the need for emergency care continue to grow globally. The specialty and emergency care systems vary according to context. This study characterizes the specialty of emergency medicine around the world, trends according to region and income level, and challenges for the specialty. Methods We distributed a 56‐question electronic survey to all members of the American College of Emergency Physicians International Ambassador Program between March 2019 and January 2020. The Ambassador Program leadership designed the survey covering specialty recognition, workforce, system components, and emergency medicine training. We analyzed results by country and in aggregate using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc). We tested the associations between World Bank income group and number of emergency medicine residency‐trained physicians (RTPs) and emergency medicine specialty recognition using non‐parametric Fisher's exact testing. We performed inductive coding of qualitative data for themes. Results Sixty‐three out of 78 countries’ teams (80%) responded to the survey. Response countries represented roughly 67% of the world's population and included countries in all World Bank income groups. Fifty‐four countries (86%) recognized emergency medicine as a specialty. Ten (16%) had no emergency medicine residency programs, and 19 (30%) had only one. Eight (11%) reported having no emergency medicine RTPs and 30 (48%) had 5 emergency medicine RTPs per 100,000 population, all high income. All 5 low‐income countries in the sample had

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient—these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single “best” care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country’s current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient’s geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Introduction Emergency care systems provide timely and relevant care to the acutely ill and injured. Published commentaries have characterised deficiencies in the Nigerian emergency care system and offered potential solutions but have not included the perspectives of the Nigerian public. A more inclusive approach that includes feedback from the public may help improve the Nigerian emergency care system through better understanding of the needs, values and expectations of the community.Methods Participants of an emergency medicine symposium participated in focus group discussions that were randomly divided into small groups led by two trained facilitators. These facilitators asked open-ended, semistructured questions to lead discussions in the English language. Participant responses were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim into transcripts. Two independent investigators employed conventional content analysis to code the transcripts until thematic saturation was achieved.Results Three descriptive themes emerged characterising the current state of Nigeria’s emergency care system as it relates to prehospital care delivery, hospital care delivery and health system governance: rudimentary, vulnerable and disconnected. At the prehospital level, concepts revolved around emergency recognition and response, ambulance and frontline providers, and cultural norms. At the hospital level, concepts centred around the health workforce, clinical competency, hospital capacity and the burden of financial hardship. At the health system level, concepts concentrated on healthcare access and healthcare financing. Opportunities for emergency care system improvement at each component level were identified and explored.Conclusions The participants in this study identified shortcomings and opportunities to improve prehospital care, hospital care and health system governance. The results of this study may help healthcare professionals, policy makers and community leaders identify gaps in the emergency care system and offer solutions in harmony with the needs, values and expectations of the community. If successful, these community-informed interventions may serve as a model to improve emergency care systems throughout Africa.

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.

Introduction: The emergency medical services (EMS) system plays a crucial role in the chain of survival for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke. While regional studies have shown underutilization of the 911 system for these time-sensitive conditions, national trends have not been studied. Our objective was to describe the national prevalence of EMS use for AMI and stroke, examine trends over a six-year period, and identify patient factors that may contribute to utilization. Methods: Using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey-ED (NHAMCS) dataset from 2003-2009, we looked at patients with a discharge diagnosis of AMI or stroke who arrived to the emergency department (ED) by ambulance. We used a survey-weighted χ2 test for trend and logistic regression analysis. Results: In the study, there were 442 actual AMI patients and 220 (49.8%) presented via EMS. There were 1,324 actual stroke patients and 666 (50.3%) presented via EMS. There was no significant change in EMS usage for AMI or stroke over the six-year period. Factors independently associated with EMS use for AMI and stroke included age (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.31), Non-Hispanic black race (OR 1.72; 95% CI 1.16-2.29), and nursing home residence (OR 11.50; 95% CI 6.19-21.36). Conclusion: In a nationally representative sample of ED visits from 20003-2009, there were no trends of increasing EMS use for AMI and stroke. Efforts to improve access to care could focus on patient groups that underutilize the EMS system for such conditions. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(7):–0.]