Dataset Information

Access to acute care resources in various income settings to treat new-onset stroke: A survey of acute care providers.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Stroke affects 15 million people annually and is responsible for 5 million deaths per annum globally. In contrast to the trend in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), stroke mortality is on the decline in high-income countries (HICs). Even though the availability of resources varies considerably by geographic region and across LMICs and HICs, evidence suggests that material resources in LMICs to implement recommendations from international guidelines are largely unmet. This study describes and compares the availability of resources to treat new-onset stroke in countries based on the World Bank's gross national incomes, using recommendations of the American Heart Association and the American Stroke Association 2013 update. Methods:A self-reported cross-sectional survey was conducted of delegates that attended the April 2016 International Conference on Emergency Medicine using the web-based e-Survey client, Survey Monkey Inc. The survey assessed both pre-hospital and in-hospital settings and was piloted before implementation. Results:The survey was distributed and opened by 955 delegates and 382 (40%) responded. Respondents from LMICs reported significantly less access to a prehospital service (p?

SUBMITTER: Chunga R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6543120 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Access to acute care resources in various income settings to treat new-onset stroke: A survey of acute care providers.

Chunga Ramadhan R Bruijns Stevan R SR Hendrikse Clint C

African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence 20190118 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Stroke affects 15 million people annually and is responsible for 5 million deaths per annum globally. In contrast to the trend in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), stroke mortality is on the decline in high-income countries (HICs). Even though the availability of resources varies considerably by geographic region and across LMICs and HICs, evidence suggests that material resources in LMICs to implement recommendations from international guidelines are largely unmet. ...[more]

PMID: 31193819

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionInjury and violence are neglected global health concerns, despite being largely predictable and therefor preventable. We conducted a small study to indirectly describe and compare the perception of availability of resources to manage major trauma in high-income, and low- and middle-income countries using evidence-based guidance (as per the 2016 National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines), as self-reported by delegates attending the 2016 International Conference on Emergency Medicine held in South Africa.MethodsA survey was distributed to delegates at the International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2016. The survey instrument captured responses from participants working in both pre- and in-hospital settings. Responses were grouped according to income group (either high-income, or low- and middle-income) based on the respondent's nationality (using the World Bank definition for income group). A Fisher's Exact test was conducted to compare responses between different income groups.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 980 delegates, and 392 (40%) responded. A total of 206 (53%) respondents were from high-income countries and 186 (47%) were from low- to middle-income countries. Respondents described significantly less access to resources and services for low- and middle-income countries to adequately care for major trauma patients both pre- and in-hospital when compared to high-income countries. Shortages ranged from consumables to analgesia, imaging to specialist services, and pre-hospital to in-hospital care.ConclusionMajor trauma care requires a chain of successful, evidence-based events for outcomes to benefit. This small study suggests that many of the links of this chain are either missing or broken within low- and middle-income countries. These settings simply do not benefit from the currently available evidence-base in major trauma care. It is important that this evidence-base also be evaluated within low- and middle-income countries. The capacity of low- and middle-income country emergency care systems also needs better describing.

Project description:IntroductionIt is unknown whether resources necessary to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines and sepsis bundles are available in Africa. This self-reported, continent-wide survey compared the availability of these resources between African and high-income countries, and between two African regions (Sub-Sahara Africa vs. South Africa, Mauritius and the Northern African countries).MethodsThe study was conducted as an anonymous questionnaire-based, cross-sectional survey among anaesthesia providers attending a transcontinental congress. Based on the respondents' country of practice, returned questionnaires were grouped into African and high-income countries. The questionnaire contained 74 items and evaluated all material resources required to implement the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. Group comparisons were performed with the Chi2, Fisher's Exact or Mann Whitney U test, as appropriate.ResultsThe overall response rate was 74.3% (318/428). Three-hundred-seven questionnaires were analysed (African countries, n = 263; high-income countries, n = 44). Respondents from African hospitals were less likely to have an emergency room (85.5 vs. 97.7%, P = 0.03) or intensive care unit (73.8 vs. 100%, P < 0.001) than respondents from high-income countries. Drugs, equipment, and disposable materials required to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines or sepsis bundles were less frequently available in African than high-income countries. Of all African and Sub-Saharan African countries, 1.5% (4/263) and 1.2% (3/248) of respondents had the resources available to implement the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in entirety. The percentage of implementable recommendations was lower in African than in high-income countries (72.6 (57.7 to 87.7)% vs. 100 (100 to 100)%, P < 0.001) and lower in Sub-Saharan African countries than South Africa, Mauritius, and the Northern African countries (72.6 (56.2 to 86.3)% vs. 90.4 (71.2 to 94.5)%, P = 0.02).ConclusionsThe results of this self-reported survey strongly suggest that the most recent Surviving Sepsis guidelines cannot be implemented in Africa, particularly not in Sub-Saharan Africa, due to a shortage of required hospital facilities, equipment, drugs and disposable materials. However, availability of resources to implement the majority of strong Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and the sepsis bundles may allow modification of current sepsis guidelines based on available resources and implementation of a substantial number of life-saving interventions into sepsis care in Africa.

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide.Research questionHow do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs?Study design and methodsBetween April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout.ResultsWe included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46).InterpretationOur findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.

Project description:Health care systems are belligerently responding to the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a specific condition, whose distinctive features are severe hypoxemia associated with (>50% of cases) normal respiratory system compliance. When a patient requires intubation and invasive ventilation, the outcome is poor, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) is usually 2 or 3 weeks. In this article, the authors review several technological devices, which could support health care providers at the bedside to optimize the care for COVID-19 patients who are sedated, paralyzed, and ventilated. Particular attention is provided to the use of videolaryngoscopes (VL) because these can assist anesthetists to perform a successful intubation outside the ICU while protecting health care providers from this viral infection. Authors will also review processed electroencephalographic (EEG) monitors which are used to better titrate sedation and the train-of-four monitors which are utilized to better administer neuromuscular blocking agents in the view of sparing limited pharmacological resources. COVID-19 can rapidly exhaust human and technological resources too within the ICU. This review features a series of technological advancements that can significantly improve the care of patients requiring isolation. The working conditions in isolation could cause gaps or barriers in communication, fatigue, and poor documentation of provided care. The available technology has several advantages including (a) facilitating appropriate paperless documentation and communication between all health care givers working in isolation rooms or large isolation areas; (b) testing patients and staff at the bedside using smart point-of-care diagnostics (SPOCD) to confirm COVID-19 infection; (c) allowing diagnostics and treatment at the bedside through point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and thromboelastography (TEG); (d) adapting the use of anesthetic machines and the use of volatile anesthetics. Implementing technologies for safeguarding health care providers as well as monitoring the limited pharmacological resources are paramount. Only by leveraging new technologies, it will be possible to sustain and support health care systems during the expected long course of this pandemic.

Dataset Information

Access to acute care resources in various income settings to treat new-onset stroke: A survey of acute care providers.

Publications

Access to acute care resources in various income settings to treat new-onset stroke: A survey of acute care providers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets