A roadmap for acute care training of frontline Healthcare workers in LMICs.

This 10-step roadmap outlines explicit procedures for developing, implementing and evaluating short focused training programs for acute care in low and middle income countries (LMICs). A roadmap is necessary to develop resilient training programs that achieve equivalent outcomes despite regional variability in human capacity and infrastructure. Programs based on the roadmap should address shortfalls in human capacity and access to care in the short term and establish the ground work for health systems strengthening in the long term. The primary targets for acute care training are frontline healthcare workers at the clinic level. The programs will differ from others currently available with respect to the timelines, triage method, therapeutic interventions and potential for secondary prevention. The roadmap encompasses multiple iterative cycles of the Plan-Do-Study-Act framework. Core features are integration of frontline trainees with the referral system while promoting research, quality improvement and evaluation from the bottom-up. Training programs must be evidence based, developed along action timelines and use adaptive training methods. A systems approach is essential because training programs that take cognizance of all factors that influence health care delivery have the potential to produce health systems strengthening (HSS).

Development of an intensive care unit resource assessment survey for the care of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

PURPOSE: Capacity to provide critical care in resource-limited settings is poorly understood because of lack of data about resources available to manage critically ill patients. Our objective was to develop a survey to address this issue. METHODS: We developed and piloted a cross-sectional self-administered survey in 9 resource-limited countries. The survey consisted of 8 domains; specific items within domains were modified from previously developed survey tools. We distributed the survey by e-mail to a convenience sample of health care providers responsible for providing care to critically ill patients. We assessed clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Nine of 15 health care providers responded to the survey on 2 separate occasions, separated by 2 to 4 weeks. Clinical sensibility was high (3.9-4.9/5 on assessment tool). Test-retest reliability for questions related to resource availability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.99; mean (SD) of weighted κ values = 0.67 [0.19]). The mean (SD) time for survey completion survey was 21 (16) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable cross-sectional survey of available resources to manage critically ill patients can be feasibly administered to health care providers in resource-limited settings. The survey will inform future research focusing on access to critical care where it is poorly described but urgently needed.

Sepsis in vulnerable populations.

Despite the acquisition of a large body of evidence, there are many unanswered questions about sepsis. The definition of this disease is plagued by the lack of a simple pathophysiological description linking cause to effect and the activation of host immune responses that hinders disease progression at the same time producing multiorgan dysfunction. A plethora of inconsistent clinical features has served to obfuscate rather than illuminate. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (SSG) are a major advance because it comprehensively interrogates all aspects of care for the critically ill. For vulnerable populations living in low- and middle-income countries, this guideline is ineffectual because of the lack of region-specific data, differences in etiology of sepsis and burden of disease, limited human capacity and infrastructure, as well as socioeconomic realities. Appropriate care must be guided by common sense guidelines that are sensitive to local realities and adapted as relevant data are acquired.

A survey on critical care resources and practices in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Timely and appropriate care is the key to achieving good outcomes in acutely ill patients, but the effectiveness of critical care may be limited in resource-limited settings. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to understand how to implement best practices in intensive care units (ICU) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and to develop a point-of-care training and decision-support tool. METHODS: An internationally representative group of clinicians performed a 22-item capacity-and-needs assessment survey in a convenience sample of 13 ICU in Eastern Europe (4), Asia (4), Latin America (3), and Africa (2), between April and July 2012. Two ICU were from low-income, 2 from low-middle-income, and 9 from upper-middle-income countries. Clinician respondents were asked about bed capacity, patient characteristics, human resources, available medications and equipment, access to education, and processes of care. RESULTS: Thirteen clinicians from each of 13 hospitals (1 per ICU) responded. Surveyed hospitals had median of 560 (interquartile range [IQR]: 232, 1,200) beds. ICU had a median of 9 (IQR: 7, 12) beds and treated 40 (IQR: 20, 67) patients per month. Many ICU had ≥ 1 staff member with some formal critical care training (n = 9, 69%) or who completed Fundamental Critical Care Support (n = 7, 54%) or Advanced Cardiac Life Support (n = 9, 69%) courses. Only 2 ICU (15%) used any kind of checklists for acute resuscitation. Ten (77%) ICU listed lack of trained staff as the most important barrier to improving the care and outcomes of critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a convenience sample of 13 ICU from LMIC, specialty-trained staff and standardized processes of care such as checklists are frequently lacking. ICU needs-assessment evaluations should be expanded in LMIC as a global priority, with the goal of creating and evaluating context-appropriate checklists for ICU best practices.

Global burden of influenza as a cause of cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality.

Severe acute respiratory infections, including influenza, are a leading cause of cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality worldwide. Until recently, the epidemiology of influenza was limited to resource-rich countries. Emerging epidemiological reports characterizing the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, however, suggest that influenza exerts an even greater toll in low-income, resource-constrained environments where it is the cause of 5% to 27% of all severe acute respiratory infections. The increased burden of disease in this setting is multifactorial and likely is the result of higher rates of comorbidities such as human immunodeficiency virus, decreased access to health care, including vaccinations and antiviral medications, and limited healthcare infrastructure, including oxygen therapy or critical care support. Improved global epidemiology of influenza is desperately needed to guide allocation of life-saving resources, including vaccines, antiviral medications, and direct the improvement of basic health care to mitigate the impact of influenza infection on the most vulnerable populations.

Integrating sepsis management recommendations into clinical care guidelines for district hospitals in resource-limited settings: the necessity to augment new guidelines with future research.

Several factors contribute to the high mortality attributed to severe infections in resource-limited settings. While improvements in survival and processes of care have been made in high-income settings among patients with severe conditions, such as sepsis, guidelines necessary for achieving these improvements may lack applicability or have not been tested in resource-limited settings. The World Health Organization's recent publication of the Integrated Management of Adolescent and Adult Illness District Clinician Manual provides details on how to optimize management of severely ill, hospitalized patients in such settings, including specific guidance on the management of patients with septic shock and respiratory failure without shock. This manuscript provides the context, process and underpinnings of these sepsis guidelines. In light of the current deficits in care and the limitations associated with these guidelines, the authors propose implementing these standardized best practice guidelines while using them as a foundation for sepsis research undertaken in, and directly relevant to, resource-limited settings.

United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group.

The United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials (USCIIT) Group is an inclusive, grassroots "network of networks" with the dual missions of fostering investigator-initiated hypothesis testing and developing recommendations for strategic plans at a national level. The USCIIT Group's transformational approach enlists multidisciplinary investigative teams across institutions, critical illness and injury professional organizations, federal agencies that fund clinical and translational research, and industry partners. The USCIIT Group is endorsed by all major critical illness and injury professional organizations spanning the specialties of anesthesiology, emergency medicine, internal medicine, neurology, nursing, pediatrics, pharmacy and nutrition, surgery and trauma, and respiratory and physical therapy. Recent successes provide the opportunity to significantly increase the dialogue necessary to advance clinical and translational research on behalf of our community. More than 200 investigators are now involved across > 30 academic and community hospitals. Collectively, USCIIT Group investigators have enrolled > 10,000 patients from academic and community hospitals in studies during the last 3 years. To keep our readership "ahead of the curve," this article provides a vision for critical illness and injury research based on (1) programmatic organization of large-scale, multicentered collaborative studies and (2) annual strategic planning at a national scale across disciplines and stakeholders.

Critical care and the global burden of critical illness in adults.

Critical care has evolved from treatment of poliomyelitis victims with respiratory failure in an intensive care unit to treatment of severely ill patients irrespective of location or specific technology. Population-based studies in the developed world suggest that the burden of critical illness is higher than generally appreciated and will increase as the population ages. Critical care capacity has long been needed in the developing world, and efforts to improve the care of the critically ill in these settings are starting to occur. Expansion of critical care to handle the consequences of an ageing population, natural disasters, conflict, inadequate primary care, and higher-risk medical therapies will be challenged by high costs at a time of economic constraint. To meet this challenge, investigators in this discipline will need to measure the global burden of critical illness and available critical-care resources, and develop both preventive and therapeutic interventions that are generalisable across countries.

Clinical research ethics for critically ill patients: a pandemic proposal.

Pandemic H1N1 influenza is projected to be unprecedented in its scope, causing acute critical illness among thousands of young otherwise healthy adults, who will need advanced life support. Rigorous, relevant, timely, and ethical clinical and health services research is crucial to improve their care and outcomes. Studies designed and conducted during a pandemic should be held to the same high methodologic and implementation standards as during other times. However, unique challenges arise with the need to conduct investigations as efficiently as possible, focused on the optimal outcome for the individual patient, while balancing the need for maximal societal benefit. We believe that clinical critical care research during a pandemic must be approached differently from research undertaken under nonemergent circumstances. We propose recommendations to clinical investigators and research ethics committees regarding clinical and health services research on pandemic-related critical illness. We also propose strategies such as expedited and centralized research ethics committee reviews and alternate consent models.

Clinical review: critical care in the global context--disparities in burden of illness, access, and economics.

World health care expenditures exceed US $4 trillion. However, there is marked variation in global health care spending, from upwards of US $7,000 per capita in the US to under US $25 per capita in most of sub-Saharan Africa. In developed countries, care of the critically ill comprises a large proportion of health care spending; however, in developing countries, with a greater burden of both illness and critical illness, there is little infrastructure to provide care for these patients. There is sparse research to inform the needs of critically ill patients, but often basic requirements such as trained personnel, medications, oxygen, diagnostic and therapeutic equipment, reliable power supply, and safe transportation are unavailable. Why should this be a focus of intensivists of the developed world? Nearly all of those dying in developing countries would be our patients without the accident of latitude. Tailored to the needs of the region, the provision of critical care has a role, even in the context of limited preventive and primary care. Internationally and locally driven solutions are needed. We can help by recognizing the '10/90 gap' that is pervasive within global health care and our profession by educating ourselves of needs, contacting and collaborating with colleagues in the developing world, and advocating that our professional societies and funding agencies consider an increasingly global perspective in education and research.