The variables perceived to be important during patient handover by South African prehospital care providers

Introduction:High-acuity patients are typically transported directly to the emergency centre via ambulance by trained prehospital care providers. As such, the emergency centre becomes the first of many physical transition points for patients, where a change of care provider (or handover) takes place. The aim of this study was to describe the variables perceived to be important during patient handover by a cohort of South African prehospital care providers.Methods:A purpose-designed questionnaire was used to gather data related to prehospital emergency care provider opinions on the importance of certain patient variables. Results: We collected 175 completed questionnaires from 75 (43%) BAA, 49 (28%) ANA, 15 (9%) ECT, 16 (9%) ANT and 20 (11%) ECP respondents. Within the ten handover variables perceived to be most important for inclusion in emergency centre handover, five were related to vital signs. Blood pressure was ranked most important, followed by type of major injuries, anatomical location of major injuries, pulse rate, respiration rate and patient history. These were followed by Glasgow Coma Score, injuries sustained, patient priority, oxygen saturations and patient allergies.Conclusion :This study has provided some interesting results related to which handover elements prehospital care providers consider as most important to include in handover. More research is required to correlate these findings with the opinions of emergency centre staff

Utilisation of emergency blood in a cohort of South African emergency centres with no direct access to a blood bank

Introduction: The transfusion of emergency blood is an essential part of haemostatic resuscitation. Locally, where direct access to a blood bank is limited, emergency blood is stored within emergency centres. It was previously suggested that stored blood provides inadequate volumes compared to what is needed. Minimal data are available regarding indications for emergency blood usage. We aimed to describe the utilisation of emergency blood in selected Cape Town emergency centres. Materials and methods :A cross-sectional study was carried out at three secondary level emergency centres (no blood bank), and one tertiary centre (with a blood bank). Data from emergency blood recipients were recorded over a three-month study period. Indications for transfusion, number of units and location of transfusion were recorded. Indications and usage location were described in numbers and proportions. Results : A total of 329 emergency blood units were transfused to 210 patients. Trauma accounted for 39% (n = 81) of cases and other surgical conditions for 22% (n = 47), particularly upper gastrointestinal 11% (n = 24) and perioperative bleeding 8% (n = 16). Medical conditions accounted for 15% (n = 31), with anaemia 13% (n = 27), the most prevalent indication. Gynaecological conditions accounted for 15% (n = 32), mostly ectopic pregnancy 8% (n = 17). The majority of emergency blood, 77% (n = 253) were used in the emergency centres or operating theatres, 6% (n = 21).Conclusion :Trauma remains a major indication for emergency blood transfusion in this setting. This study questions the use of emergency blood for certain non-urgent diagnoses (i.e. anaemia). Given the scarcity of this resource and limitations to access, appropriate use of emergency blood needs to be better defined locally. Ongoing monitoring of the indications for which emergency blood is used, improved transfusion stewardship and better systems to access emergency blood should be a priority in this setting

A cross-sectional description of open access publication costs, policies and impact in emergency medicine and critical care journals

Introduction :Finding journal open access information alongside its global impact requires access to multiple databases. We describe a single, searchable database of all emergency medicine and critical care journals that include their open access policies, publication costs, and impact metrics.Methods:A list of emergency medicine and critical care journals (including citation metrics) was created using Scopus (Citescore) and the Web of Science (Impact Factor). Cost of gold/hybrid open access and article process charges (open access fees) were collected from journal websites. Self-archiving policies were collected from the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Relative cost of access in different regions were calculated using the World Bank Purchasing Power Parity index for authors from the United States, Germany, Turkey, China, Brazil, South Africa and Australia.Results:We identified 78 emergency medicine and 82 critical care journals. Median Citescore for emergency medicine was 0.73 (interquartile range, IQR 0.32­1.27). Median impact factor was 1.68 (IQR 1.00­2.39). Median Citescore for critical care was 0.95 (IQR 0.25­2.06). Median impact factor was 2.18 (IQR 1.73­3.50). Mean article process charge for emergency medicine was $2243.04, SD = $1136.16 and for critical care $2201.64, SD = $1174.38. Article process charges were 2.24, 1.75, 2.28 and 1.56 times more expensive for South African, Chinese, Turkish and Brazilian authors respectively than United States authors, but neutral for German and Australian authors (1.02 and 0.81 respectively). The database can be accessed here: http://www.emct.info/publication-search.html.Conclusions:We present a single database that captures emergency medicine and critical care journal impact rankings alongside its respective open access cost and green open access policies