Measuring emergency care systems: the path forward

Essential human and material resources for emergency care in the district hospitals of Burundi

Introduction

Burundi, like many African nations, faces challenges in providing accessible emergency care. The aim of this study was to assess the type of staff training, accessibility to imaging, and availability of essential equipment in the district hospitals of Burundi in order to inform strategic planning for healthcare delivery.

Methods

In June 2022 an online survey was sent to each district hospital of the country. Complete responses were analysed and, where appropriate, significance determined by chi-square analysis, with p<0.05 considered significant.

Results

Forty of 45 district hospitals completed the survey, of which 35 were rural (matching national demographics). The majority of district hospitals (21/40) had ready access to ≥4/5 critical drugs while few (5/40) were equipped with ≥4/5 key material. One quarter had 24/7 physician coverage and X-ray available. Only 3 had continuous access to ultrasound studies despite most district hospitals having ultrasound machines. Trained emergency room staff were almost totally absent from the field, with only 6 nurses, 4 generalists, and 1 specialist reported across 9 sites. Even a single EM-trained staff member was significantly correlated with being better equipped for emergencies (p<0.01).

Conclusion

Burundi needs a strategic investment in emergency preparedness and care. Policy initiatives and technology purchases have demonstrated reasonable penetration down to the district hospital level, however, trained personnel are essential to develop sustainable emergency capacity.

Development of an emergency medical system model for resource-constrained settings

OBJECTIVES

An emergency care system is an important aspect for healthcare organisations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with a growing burden from emergency disease conditions. Evaluations of emergency care systems in LMICs in broader contexts are lacking. Thus, this study aimed to develop a comprehensive emergency medical system model appropriate for resource-constrained settings, based on expert opinions.

METHODS

We used the Delphi method, in which questionnaire surveys were administered three times to an expert panel (both emergency medical care providers and healthcare service researchers), from which opinions on the model's components were compiled. The panel members were mostly from Asian countries. In the first round, the questionnaire drew a list of model components developed through a literature review; the panel members then proposed new components to create a more comprehensive list. In the second and third rounds, the panel members rated the listed components to achieve consensus, as well as to remove components with low ratings. Finally, we rearranged the list to improve its usability.

RESULTS

In total, 32 experts from 12 countries participated. The final model totalled 177 components, categorised into 8 domains (leadership, community-based actions, emergency medical services, upward referral, definitive care, rehabilitation, downward referral, and evaluation and research). No components needed removal.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a comprehensive emergency care system model, which could provide a basis to evaluate emergency care systems in resource-constrained LMICs; however, field-testing and validation of this system model remain to be done.

Developing metrics for emergency care research in low- and middle-income countries

INTRODUCTION

There is little research on emergency care delivery in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To facilitate future research, we aimed to assess the set of key metrics currently used by researchers in these settings and to propose a set of standard metrics to facilitate future research.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 43,109 published reports on general emergency care from 139 LMICs. Studies describing care for subsets of emergency conditions, subsets of populations, and data aggregated across multiple facilities were excluded. All facility- and patient-level statistics reported in these studies were recorded and the most commonly used metrics were identified.

RESULTS

We identified 195 studies on emergency care delivery in LMICs. There was little uniformity in either patient- or facility-level metrics reported. Patient demographics were inconsistently reported: only 33% noted average age and 63% the gender breakdown. The upper age boundary used for paediatric data varied widely, from 5 to 20 years of age. Emergency centre capacity was reported using a variety of metrics including annual patient volume (n = 175, 90%); bed count (n = 60, 31%), number of rooms (n = 48, 25%); frequently none of these metrics were reported (n = 16, 8%). Many characteristics essential to describe capabilities and performance of emergency care were not reported, including use and type of triage; level of provider training; admission rate; time to evaluation; and length of EC stay.

CONCLUSION

We found considerable heterogeneity in reporting practices for studies of emergency care in LMICs. Standardised metrics could facilitate future analysis and interpretation of such studies, and expand the ability to generalise and compare findings across emergency care settings.

Emergency care in 59 low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

We 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.

Findings

We 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.

Conclusion

Available 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.