Dataset Information

A national survey of critical care services in hospitals accredited for training in a lower-middle income country: Pakistan.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: To describe the extent and variation of critical care services in Pakistan.

Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in all intensive care units (ICUs) recognised for postgraduate training to determine administration, infrastructure, equipment, staffing, and training.

Results: There were 151 hospitals recognised for training, providing 2166 ICU beds and 1473 ventilators. Regional distribution of ICU beds per 100,000 population ranged from 1.0 in Sindh to none in Gilgit Baltistan (median 0.7). A senior clinician trained in critical care was available in 19 (12.1%) of units. One-to-one nurse-to-bed ratio during the day was available in 84 (53.5%) of units, dropping to 75 (47.8%) at night. Availability of 1:1 nursing also varied between provinces, ranging from 56.5% in Punjab compared to 0% in Azad Jamu Kashmir. Similarly, there was disparity in the availability of ventilators between provinces. All ICUs had basic infrastructure (electricity, running water, piped oxygen) and basic equipment (electronic monitoring and infusion pumps).

Conclusion: Pakistan, a lower middle-income country, has an established network of critical care facilities with access to basic equipment, but inequalities in its distribution. Investment in critical care training for doctors and nurses is needed.

SUBMITTER: Hashmi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7441021 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A national survey of critical care services in hospitals accredited for training in a lower-middle income country: Pakistan.

Hashmi Madiha M Taqi Arshad A Memon Muhammad I MI Ali Syed Muneeb SM Khaskheli Saleh S Sheharyar Muhammad M Hayat Muhammad M Shiekh Mohiuddin M Kodippily Chamira C Gamage Dilanthi D Dondorp Arjen M AM Haniffa Rashan R Beane Abi A

Journal of critical care 20200821

<h4>Purpose</h4>To describe the extent and variation of critical care services in Pakistan.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A cross-sectional survey was conducted in all intensive care units (ICUs) recognised for postgraduate training to determine administration, infrastructure, equipment, staffing, and training.<h4>Results</h4>There were 151 hospitals recognised for training, providing 2166 ICU beds and 1473 ventilators. Regional distribution of ICU beds per 100,000 population ranged from 1.0 in S ...[more]

PMID: 32942162

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where echocardiography experts are in short supply, training non-cardiologists to perform Focused Cardiac Ultrasound (FoCUS) could minimise diagnostic delays in time-critical emergencies. Despite advocacy for FoCUS training however, opportunities in LMICs are limited, and the impact of existing curricula uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of FoCUS training based on the Focus Assessed Transthoracic Echocardiography (FATE) curriculum. Our primary objective was to assess knowledge gain. Secondary objectives were to evaluate novice FoCUS image quality, assess inter-rater agreement between expert and novice FoCUS and identify barriers to the establishment of a FoCUS training programme locally.MethodsThis was a pre-post quasi-experimental study at a tertiary hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. Twelve novices without prior echocardiography training underwent FATE training, and their knowledge and skills were assessed. Pre- and post-test scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test to establish whether the median of the difference was different than zero. Inter-rater agreement between expert and novice scans was assessed, with a Cohen's kappa >0.6 indicative of good inter-rater agreement.ResultsKnowledge gain was 37.7%, with a statistically significant difference between pre-and post-test scores (z = 2.934, p = 0.001). Specificity of novice FoCUS was higher than sensitivity, with substantial agreement between novice and expert scans for most FoCUS target conditions. Overall, 65.4% of novice images were of poor quality. Post-workshop supervised practice was limited due to scheduling difficulties.ConclusionsAlthough knowledge gain is high following a brief training in FoCUS, image quality is poor and sensitivity low without adequate supervised practice. Substantial agreement between novice and expert scans occurs even with insufficient practice when the prevalence of pathology is low. Supervised FoCUS practice is challenging to achieve in a real-world setting in LMICs, undermining the effectiveness of training initiatives.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of severity of illness scoring systems such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation in lower-middle income settings comes with important limitations, primarily due to data burden, missingness of key variables and lack of resources. To overcome these challenges, in Asia, a simplified model, designated as e-TropICS was previously developed. We sought to externally validate this model using data from a multi-centre critical care registry in India.MethodsSeven ICUs from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care(IRIS) contributed data to this study. Patients > 18 years of age with an ICU length of stay > 6 hours were included. Data including age, gender, co-morbidity, diagnostic category, type of admission, vital signs, laboratory measurements and outcomes were collected for all admissions. e-TropICS was calculated as per original methods. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to express the model's power to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors. For all tests of significance, a 2-sided P less than or equal to 0.05 was considered to be significant. AUROC values were considered poor when ≤ to 0.70, adequate between 0.71 to 0.80, good between 0.81 to 0.90, and excellent at 0.91 or higher. Calibration was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow C -statistic.ResultsWe included data from 2062 consecutive patient episodes. The median age of the cohort was 60 and predominantly male (n = 1350, 65.47%). Mechanical Ventilation and vasopressors were administered at admission in 504 (24.44%) and 423 (20.51%) patients respectively. Overall, mortality at ICU discharge was 10.28% (n = 212). Discrimination (AUC) for the e-TropICS model was 0.83 (95% CI 0.812-0.839) with an HL C statistic p value of < 0.05. The best sensitivity and specificity (84% and 72% respectively) were achieved with the model at an optimal cut-off for probability of 0.29.Conclusione-TropICS has utility in the care of critically unwell patients in the South Asia region with good discriminative capacity. Further refinement of calibration in larger datasets from India and across the South-East Asia region will help in improving model performance.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to quantify the changes that occurred in the surgical services of children during the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of a low/middle-income country.DesignA case-control study was conducted at a large referral centre in Bangladesh among patients aged ≤12 years. Comparisons were made between cases admitted during a period of 'April to September 2020' (Pandemic period) and controls during a similar period in 2019 (Reference period). The number of admissions and outpatient department (OPD) attendances, age and sex distribution, diagnosis, number and types of surgeries performed (elective vs emergency), variations in treatment of acute appendicitis, types of anaesthesia and mortality were compared.ResultsAdmissions were only 41% of previous year (635 vs 1549), and OPD attendances were only 28% of previous year (603 vs 2152). Admission of children reduced by 65.8%, but neonatal admission reduced only by 7.6%. The median age of the admitted patients was significantly lower during the pandemic period (3 vs 4 years, p<0.01). Acute appendicitis (151, 9.8%) and trauma (61, 9.6%), respectively, were the the most common causes of admission during the reference and the pandemic period. Elective surgeries were only 17% and emergency surgeries were 64% of previous year (p<0.01). Appendectomy (88, 9.1%) and laparotomy (77, 17.6%), respectively, were the most common surgeries performed during the reference and the pandemic period. Conservative treatment of acute appendicitis was more during the pandemic period (47.5% vs 28.5%, p=0.01), but patients who underwent appendectomies had more complicated appendicitis (63.3% vs 42.1%, p=0.01). In all, 90.4% of surgeries were performed by resident doctors. There were no COVID-19- related deaths.ConclusionTrauma became the most common cause of admission during the pandemic, and neonatal surgical conditions remained almost unchanged with high mortality rates. Elective procedures and laparoscopy remained low and resident doctors played a major role in providing surgical services.

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.

Dataset Information

A national survey of critical care services in hospitals accredited for training in a lower-middle income country: Pakistan.

Publications

A national survey of critical care services in hospitals accredited for training in a lower-middle income country: Pakistan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets