Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(9)2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435044


BACKGROUND: Globally, critical illness results in millions of deaths every year. Although many of these deaths are potentially preventable, the basic, life-saving care of critically ill patients are often overlooked in health systems. Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) has been devised as the care that should be provided to all critically ill patients in all hospitals in the world. EECC includes the effective care of low cost and low complexity for the identification and treatment of critically ill patients across all medical specialties. This study aimed to specify the content of EECC and additionally, given the surge of critical illness in the ongoing pandemic, the essential diagnosis-specific care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In a Delphi process, consensus (>90% agreement) was sought from a diverse panel of global clinical experts. The panel iteratively rated proposed treatments and actions based on previous guidelines and the WHO/ICRC's Basic Emergency Care. The output from the Delphi was adapted iteratively with specialist reviewers into a coherent and feasible package of clinical processes plus a list of hospital readiness requirements. RESULTS: The 269 experts in the Delphi panel had clinical experience in different acute medical specialties from 59 countries and from all resource settings. The agreed EECC package contains 40 clinical processes and 67 requirements, plus additions specific for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The study has specified the content of care that should be provided to all critically ill patients. Implementing EECC could be an effective strategy for policy makers to reduce preventable deaths worldwide.

COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Consensus , Critical Care , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e046130, 2021 09 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412601


OBJECTIVES: Purposefully designed and validated screening, triage, and severity scoring tools are needed to reduce mortality of COVID-19 in low-resource settings (LRS). This review aimed to identify currently proposed and/or implemented methods of screening, triaging, and severity scoring of patients with suspected COVID-19 on initial presentation to the healthcare system and to evaluate the utility of these tools in LRS. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted to identify studies describing acute screening, triage, and severity scoring of patients with suspected COVID-19 published between 12 December 2019 and 1 April 2021. Extracted information included clinical features, use of laboratory and imaging studies, and relevant tool validation data. PARTICIPANT: The initial search strategy yielded 15 232 articles; 124 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies were from China (n=41, 33.1%) or the United States (n=23, 18.5%). In total, 57 screening, 23 triage, and 54 severity scoring tools were described. A total of 51 tools-31 screening, 5 triage, and 15 severity scoring-were identified as feasible for use in LRS. A total of 37 studies provided validation data: 4 prospective and 33 retrospective, with none from low-income and lower middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a number of screening, triage, and severity scoring tools implemented and proposed for patients with suspected COVID-19. No tools were specifically designed and validated in LRS. Tools specific to resource limited contexts is crucial to reducing mortality in the current pandemic.

COVID-19 , Triage , Humans , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0240503, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-840859


BACKGROUND: In this paper, we predict the health and economic consequences of immediate investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: To account for health consequences, we estimated mortality for HCWs and present a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model with Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Data sources included inputs from the World Health Organization Essential Supplies Forecasting Tool and the Imperial College of London epidemiologic model. RESULTS: An investment of $9.6 billion USD would adequately protect HCWs in all LMICs. This intervention would save 2,299,543 lives across LMICs, costing $59 USD per HCW case averted and $4,309 USD per HCW life saved. The societal ROI would be $755.3 billion USD, the equivalent of a 7,932% return. Regional and national estimates are also presented. DISCUSSION: In scenarios where PPE remains scarce, 70-100% of HCWs will get infected, irrespective of nationwide social distancing policies. Maintaining HCW infection rates below 10% and mortality below 1% requires inclusion of a PPE scale-up strategy as part of the pandemic response. In conclusion, wide-scale procurement and distribution of PPE for LMICs is an essential strategy to prevent widespread HCW morbidity and mortality. It is cost-effective and yields a large downstream return on investment.

Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Health Workforce/economics , Personal Protective Equipment/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Bayes Theorem , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/economics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Developing Countries , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Monte Carlo Method , Pandemics/economics , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Pneumonia, Viral/economics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
Afr J Emerg Med ; 10(2): 49, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-600069
Afr J Emerg Med ; 2020 Apr 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-27773