Dataset Information

Resource-poor settings: infrastructure and capacity building: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Planning for mass critical care (MCC) in resource-poor or constrained settings has been largely ignored, despite their large populations that are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. Addressing MCC in these settings has the potential to help vast numbers of people and also to inform planning for better-resourced areas. METHODS:The Resource-Poor Settings panel developed five key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditional phases of disaster (mitigation/preparedness/response/recovery), literature searches were conducted to identify evidence on which to answer the key questions in these areas. Given a lack of data upon which to develop evidence-based recommendations, expert-opinion suggestions were developed, and consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS:The five key questions were then separated as follows: definition, infrastructure and capacity building, resources, response, and reconstitution/recovery of host nation critical care capabilities and research. Addressing these questions led the panel to offer 33 suggestions. Because of the large number of suggestions, the results have been separated into two sections: part 1, Infrastructure/Capacity in this article, and part 2, Response/Recovery/Research in the accompanying article. CONCLUSIONS:Lack of, or presence of, rudimentary ICU resources and limited capacity to enhance services further challenge resource-poor and constrained settings. Hence, capacity building entails preventative strategies and strengthening of primary health services. Assistance from other countries and organizations is needed to mount a surge response. Moreover, planning should include when to disengage and how the host nation can provide capacity beyond the mass casualty care event.

SUBMITTER: Geiling J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6679686 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resource-poor settings: infrastructure and capacity building: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

Geiling James J Burkle Frederick M FM Amundson Dennis D Dominguez-Cherit Guillermo G Gomersall Charles D CD Lim Matthew L ML Luyckx Valerie V Sarani Babak B Uyeki Timothy M TM West T Eoin TE Christian Michael D MD Devereaux Asha V AV Dichter Jeffrey R JR Kissoon Niranjan N

Chest 20141001 4 Suppl

<h4>Background</h4>Planning for mass critical care (MCC) in resource-poor or constrained settings has been largely ignored, despite their large populations that are prone to suffer disproportionately from natural disasters. Addressing MCC in these settings has the potential to help vast numbers of people and also to inform planning for better-resourced areas.<h4>Methods</h4>The Resource-Poor Settings panel developed five key question domains; defining the term resource poor and using the traditi ...[more]

PMID: 25144337

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEngagement and education of ICU clinicians in disaster preparedness is fragmented by time constraints and institutional barriers and frequently occurs during a disaster. We reviewed the existing literature from 2007 to April 2013 and expert opinions about clinician engagement and education for critical care during a pandemic or disaster and offer suggestions for integrating ICU clinicians into planning and response. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in a pandemic or large-scale disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed and suggestions formulated according to the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Consensus Statement development methodology. We assessed articles, documents, reports, and gray literature reported since 2007. Following expert-informed sorting and review of the literature, key priority areas and questions were developed. No studies of sufficient quality were identified upon which to make evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.ResultsTwenty-three suggestions were formulated based on literature-informed consensus opinion. These suggestions are grouped according to the following thematic elements: (1) situational awareness, (2) clinician roles and responsibilities, (3) education, and (4) community engagement. Together, these four elements are considered to form the basis for effective ICU clinician engagement for mass critical care.ConclusionsThe optimal engagement of the ICU clinical team in caring for large numbers of critically ill patients due to a pandemic or disaster will require a departure from the routine independent systems operating in hospitals. An effective response will require robust information systems; coordination among clinicians, hospitals, and governmental organizations; pre-event engagement of relevant stakeholders; and standardized core competencies for the education and training of critical care clinicians.

Project description:Despite the high risk for patient harm during unanticipated ICU evacuations, critical care providers receive little to no training on how to perform safe and effective ICU evacuations. We reviewed the pertinent published literature and offer suggestions for the critical care provider regarding ICU evacuation. The suggestions in this article are important for all who are involved in pandemics or disasters with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.The Evacuation and Mobilization topic panel used the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology to develop seven key questions for which specific literature searches were conducted to identify studies upon which evidence-based recommendations could be made. No studies of sufficient quality were identified. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.Based on current best evidence, we provide 13 suggestions outlining a systematic approach to prepare for and execute an effective ICU evacuation during a disaster. Interhospital and intrahospital collaboration and functional ICU communication are critical for success. Pre-event planning and preparation are required for a no-notice evacuation. A Critical Care Team Leader must be designated within the Hospital Incident Command System. A three-stage ICU Evacuation Timeline, including (1) no immediate threat, (2) evacuation threat, and (3) evacuation implementation, should be used. Detailed suggestions on ICU evacuation, including regional planning, evacuation drills, patient transport preparation and equipment, patient prioritization and distribution for evacuation, patient information and tracking, and federal and international evacuation assistance systems, are also provided.Successful ICU evacuation during a disaster requires active preparation, participation, communication, and leadership by critical care providers. Critical care providers have a professional obligation to become better educated, prepared, and engaged with the processes of ICU evacuation to provide a safe continuum of critical care during a disaster.

Project description:BackgroundDuring disasters, supply chain vulnerabilities, such as power, transportation, and communication, may affect the delivery of medications and medical supplies and hamper the ability to deliver critical care services. Disasters also have the potential to disrupt information technology (IT) in health-care systems, resulting in interruptions in patient care, particularly critical care, and other health-care business functions. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in a large-scale pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.MethodsThe Business and Continuity of Operations Panel followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology in developing key questions regarding medication and supply shortages and the impact disasters may have on healthcare IT. Task force members met in person to develop the 13 key questions believed to be most relevant for Business and Continuity of Operations. A systematic literature review was then performed for relevant articles and documents, reports, and gray literature reported since 2007. No studies of sufficient quality were identified upon which to make evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.ResultsEighteen suggestions addressing mitigation strategies for supply chain vulnerabilities including medications and IT were generated. Suggestions offered to hospitals and health system leadership regarding medication and supply shortages include: (1) purchase key medications and supplies from more than one supplier, (2) substituted medications or supplies should ideally be similar to those already used by an institution's providers, (3) inventories should be tracked electronically to monitor medication/supply levels, (4) consider higher inventories of medications and supplies known or projected to be in short supply, (5) institute alternate use protocols when a (potential) shortage is identified, and 6) support government and nongovernmental organizations in efforts to address supply chain vulnerability. Health-care IT can be damaged in a disaster, and hospitals and health system leadership should have plans for urgently reestablishing local area networks. Planning should include using portable technology, plans for providing power, maintenance of a patient database that can accompany each patient, and protection of patient privacy. Additionally, long-term planning should include prioritizing servers and memory disk drives and possibly increasing inventory of critical IT supplies in preparedness planning.ConclusionsThe provision of care to the critically ill or injured during a pandemic or disaster is dependent on key processes, such as the supply chain, and infrastructure, such as IT systems. Hospitals and health systems will help minimize the impact of medication and supply shortages with a focused strategy using the steps suggested. IT preparedness for maintaining local area networks, functioning clinical information systems, and adequate server and memory storage capacity will greatly enhance preparedness for hospital and health system clinical and business operations.

Project description:BackgroundSystem-level planning involves uniting hospitals and health systems, local/regional government agencies, emergency medical services, and other health-care entities involved in coordinating and enabling care in a major disaster. We reviewed the literature and sought expert opinions concerning system-level planning and engagement for mass critical care due to disasters or pandemics and offer suggestions for system-planning, coordination, communication, and response. The suggestions in this chapter are important for all of those involved in a pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.MethodsThe American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) consensus statement development process was followed in developing suggestions. Task Force members met in person to develop nine key questions believed to be most relevant for system-planning, coordination, and communication. A systematic literature review was then performed for relevant articles and documents, reports, and other publications reported since 1993. No studies of sufficient quality were identified upon which to make evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.ResultsSuggestions were developed and grouped according to the following thematic elements: (1) national government support of health-care coalitions/regional health authorities (HC/RHAs), (2) teamwork within HC/RHAs, (3) system-level communication, (4) system-level surge capacity and capability, (5) pediatric patients and special populations, (6) HC/RHAs and networks, (7) models of advanced regional care systems, and (8) the use of simulation for preparedness and planning.ConclusionsSystem-level planning is essential to provide care for large numbers of critically ill patients because of disaster or pandemic. It also entails a departure from the routine, independent system and involves all levels from health-care institutions to regional health authorities. National government support is critical, as are robust communication systems and advanced planning supported by realistic exercises.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of β-blockers in the critically ill has been studied, and data on the protective effects of these drugs on critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature over the last two decades. However, consensus and guidelines by scientific societies on the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients are still lacking. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient's care process.MethodsThe Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected a panel of experts and asked them to define key aspects underlying the use of β-blockers in critically ill adult patients. The methodology followed by the experts during this process was in line with principles of modified Delphi and RAND-UCLA methods. The experts developed statements and supportive rationales in the form of informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to blind votes for consensus.ResultsThe literature search suggests that adrenergic stress and increased heart rate in critically ill patients are associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Heart rate control thus seems to be critical in the management of the critically ill patient, requiring careful clinical evaluation aimed at both the differential diagnosis to treat secondary tachycardia and the treatment of rhythm disturbance. In addition, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of persistent tachycardia may be considered in patients with septic shock once hypovolemia has been ruled out. Intravenous application should be the preferred route of administration.Conclusionβ-blockers protective effects in critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature. Their use in the acute treatment of increased heart rate requires understanding of the pathophysiology and careful differential diagnosis, as all causes of tachycardia should be ruled out and addressed first.

Dataset Information

Resource-poor settings: infrastructure and capacity building: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

Publications

Resource-poor settings: infrastructure and capacity building: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets