Dataset Information

Lessons from the frontline: Documenting the pandemic emergency care experience from the Pacific region – Infrastructure and equipment

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges for all health systems worldwide. This research aimed to explore the impact of COVID-19 across the Pacific especially with regards to emergency care (EC) and clinicians’ preparations and responses.

Methods

A collaboration of Australia and Pacific researchers conducted prospective qualitative research over 18 months of the pandemic. In this three phase study data were gathered from Emergency Clinicians and stakeholders through online support forums, in-depth interviews and focus groups. A phenomenological methodological approach was employed to explore the lived experience of participants. This paper discusses the findings of the study regarding the EC building block of ‘Infrastructure and Equipment.’

Findings

Pre-existing infrastructure and equipment were not sufficient to help control the pandemic. Adequate space and correct equipment were essential needs for Pacific Island emergency clinicians, with donations, procurement and local ingenuity required for suitable, sustainable supplies and facilities. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) conferred a sense of security and increased Health Care Workers willingness to attend to patients.

Interpretation

Investing in adequate infrastructure and appropriate equipment is crucial for an effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sustainability of such investments in the Pacific context is paramount for ongoing EC and preparation for future surge responses and disasters.

Funding

Phases 1 and 2A of this study were part of an Epidemic Ethics/World Health Organization (WHO) initiative, supported by Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office/Wellcome Grant 214711/Z/18/Z. Co-funding for this research was received from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine Foundation via an International Development Fund Grant.

SUBMITTER: Cox M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9259041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers' (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs' fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semistructured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145?000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25).ParticipantsInterview participants were HCWs purposively sampled from critical care, emergency and respiratory departments as well as redeployed HCWs from primary, secondary and tertiary care centres across the UK.ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to reuse and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about differential access to adequate PPE, particularly for women and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use.ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases.MethodsA cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines.FindingsTwo hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%).ConclusionsMany ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.

Project description:BackgroundPersonal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections.ObjectiveTo perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2.FindingsPhase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases.ConclusionsOverall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency care (EC) describes team-based, multidisciplinary clinical service provision, advocacy and health systems strengthening to address all urgent aspects of illness and injury for all people. In order to improve facility-based EC delivery, a structured framework is necessary to outline current capacity and future needs. This paper draws on examples of EC Needs Assessments performed at the national hospitals of three different Pacific Island Countries (PICs), to describe the development, implementation and validation of a structured assessment tool and methodological approach to conducting an EC Needs Assessment in the Pacific region.MethodsThis is a retrospective, descriptive analysis of the development of the Pacific Emergency Care Assessment (PECA) table using patient-focused principles within an EC systems framework. Tool implementation occurred through observation, literature review and interviews using a strengths-based, action-research and ethnographic methodological approach in Timor-Leste, Kiribati and the Solomon Islands. The 2014 Solomon Islands EC Needs Assessment provides the main context to illustrate and discuss the overall conduct, feasibility, validity and reliability of the PECA tool and methodological approach.ResultsIn each site, the methodological implementation enabled completion of both the PECA table and comprehensive report within approximately 6 weeks of first arriving in country. Reports synthesising findings, recommendations, priority action areas and strategies were distributed widely amongst stakeholders. Examples illustrate Face and Content, Construct and Catalytic validity, including subsequent process and infrastructure improvements triggered by the EC Needs Assessment in each site. Triangulation of information and consistency of use over time enhanced reliability of the PECA tool. Compared to other EC assessment models, the Pacific approach enabled rich data on capacity and real-life function of EC facilities. The qualitative, strengths-based method engenders long-term partnerships and positive action, but takes time and requires tailoring to a specific site.ConclusionIn PICs and other global contexts where EC resources are underdeveloped, a PECA-style approach to conducting an EC Needs Assessment can trigger positive change through high local stakeholder engagement. Testing this qualitative implementation method with a standardised EC assessment tool in other limited resource contexts is the next step to further improve global EC.