Triage and resuscitation tools for low and middle income countries: how to catch the killer?

Under-5 mortality rates in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) remain high. One major contributing factor is the failure to recognise critically unwell children when they first present to hospital. This leads to delayed or inadequate resuscitation and an increased risk of death.Triage is a key skill in this setting to sort the queue and prioritise patients, even when staff and equipment are scarce. In LMIC, children generally present late in their illness and often have progressed to some degree of multiorgan dysfunction.Following triage, a structured systematic primary survey is critical to ensure the detection of subtle signs of multiorgan dysfunction. Repeated physiological assessments of the child guide subsequent resuscitation management decisions, which depend somewhat on the resources available.It is possible to achieve significant improvements in survival of critically unwell children presenting for emergency care in the resource-limited setting. The three key steps in the patient's journey that we can influence in emergency care are triage, primary survey and initial stabilisation. Resources that address these steps have been developed for all settings. However, these resources were developed in a specific clinical context, and must therefore be adapted to local structures and processes. A systematic approach to triage and resuscitation saves lives.

A survey of mHealth use from a physician perspective in paediatric emergency care in the UK and Ireland.

There has been a drive towards increased digitalisation in healthcare. The aim was to provide a snapshot of current apps, instant messaging, and smartphone photography use in paediatric emergency care. A web-based self-report questionnaire was performed. Individual physicians working in paediatric emergency care recorded their personal practice. One hundred ninety-eight medical doctors completed the survey. Eight percent of respondents had access to institutional mobile devices to run medical apps. Eighty-six percent of respondents used medical apps on their personal mobile device, with 78% using Apple iOS devices. Forty-seven percent of respondents used formulary apps daily. Forty-nine percent of respondents had between 1-5 medical apps on their personal mobile device. Respondents who used medical apps had a total of 845 medical apps installed on their personal device, accounted for by 56 specific apps. The British National Formulary (BNF/BNFc) app was installed on the personal mobile device of 96% of respondents that use medical apps. Forty percent of respondents had patient confidentiality concerns when using medical apps. Thirty-eight percent of respondents have used consumer instant messaging services, 6% secure specialist messaging services, and 29% smartphone photography when seeking patient management advice. CONCLUSION: App use on the personal mobile devices, in the absence of access to institutional devices, was widespread, especially the use of a national formulary app. Instant messaging and smartphone photography were less common. A strategic decision has to be made to either provide staff with institutional devices or use software solutions to address data governance concerns when using personal devices. What is Known: • mHealth use by junior doctors and medical students is widespread. • Clinicians' use of instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp is the widespread in the UK and Ireland, in the absence of alternatives. What is New: • Personal mobile device use was widespread in the absence of alternatives, with the British National Formulary nearly universally downloaded to physicians' personal mobile devices. • A third of respondents used instant messaging and smartphone photography on their personal mobile device when seeking patient management advice from other teams in the absence of alternatives.

Fifteen minute consultation: When can I use a medical app?

Advances in mobile device technology and internet connectivity have created powerful new mobile health (mHealth) and telemedicine capabilities. The guidelines regarding mHealth use in the clinical environment can be conflicting, which has resulted in some reluctance by institutions and medical staff to fully embrace these advances due to privacy and patient confidentiality concerns among others. The COVID-19 response has led to departments to reconfigurate care and revisit mHealth as a tool to allow social distancing and remote care. This article reviews mHealth guidance in practice and describes its use and interpretation as rapid decision-making aid and in telehealth.

Prescribing in a paediatric emergency: A PERUKI survey of prescribing and resuscitation aids.

AIM: The aim was to investigate the use of paper-based and electronic prescribing and resuscitation aids in paediatric emergency care from a departmental and individual physician perspective. METHODS: A two-stage web-based self-report questionnaire was performed. In stage (i), a lead investigator at PERUKI sites completed a department-level survey; in stage (ii), individual physicians recorded their personal practice. RESULTS: The site survey was completed by 46/54 (85%) of PERUKI sites. 198 physicians completed the individual physicians' survey. Individual physicians selected the use of formulary apps for checking of medication dosages nearly as often as hardcopy formularies. The APLS WETFLAG calculation and hardcopy aids were widely accepted in both surveys. A third of sites accepted and half of the individual physicians selected resuscitation apps on the personal mobile device as paediatric resuscitation aids. CONCLUSION: Our survey shows a high penetrance of the British National Formulary app, a success of NHS digital policy and strategy. Despite potential advantages, many physicians in our survey do not use resuscitation apps. Reluctance to engage with apps is likely to be multifactorial and includes human factors. These obstacles need to be overcome to create a digital healthcare culture.

Towards developing a consensus assessment framework for global emergency medicine fellowships.

BACKGROUND: The number of Global Emergency Medicine (GEM) Fellowship training programs are increasing worldwide. Despite the increasing number of GEM fellowships, there is not an agreed upon approach for assessment of GEM trainees. MAIN BODY: In order to study the lack of standardized assessment in GEM fellowship training, a working group was established between the International EM Fellowship Consortium (IEMFC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM). A needs assessment survey of IEMFC members and a review were undertaken to identify assessment tools currently in use by GEM fellowship programs; what relevant frameworks exist; and common elements used by programs with a wide diversity of emphases. A consensus framework was developed through iterative working group discussions. Thirty-two of 40 GEM fellowships responded (80% response). There is variability in the use and format of formal assessment between programs. Thirty programs reported training GEM fellows in the last 3 years (94%). Eighteen (56%) reported only informal assessments of trainees. Twenty-seven (84%) reported regular meetings for assessment of trainees. Eleven (34%) reported use of a structured assessment of any sort for GEM fellows and, of these, only 2 (18%) used validated instruments modified from general EM residency assessment tools. Only 3 (27%) programs reported incorporation of formal written feedback from partners in other countries. Using these results along with a review of the available assessment tools in GEM the working group developed a set of principles to guide GEM fellowship assessments along with a sample assessment for use by GEM fellowship programs seeking to create their own customized assessments. CONCLUSION: There are currently no widely used assessment frameworks for GEM fellowship training. The working group made recommendations for developing standardized assessments aligned with competencies defined by the programs, that characterize goals and objectives of training, and document progress of trainees towards achieving those goals. Frameworks used should include perspectives of multiple stakeholders including partners in other countries where trainees conduct field work. Future work may evaluate the usability, validity and reliability of assessment frameworks in GEM fellowship training.

Mobile device and app use in paediatric emergency care: a survey of departmental practice in the UK and Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: Mobile devices and medical apps are used by healthcare professionals in adult and paediatric emergency departments worldwide. Recently, there has been a drive toward increased digitalisation especially in the UK. This point prevalence survey aims to describe hardware and software provision and their use in paediatric emergency care in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: A web-based self-report questionnaire of member sites of an international paediatric emergency research collaborative was performed. A lead site investigator completed the survey on behalf of each site. RESULTS: Of the 54 sites, 46 (85%) responded. At 10 (21.7%) sites, the use of a personal mobile device at the bedside was not allowed; however, this was only enforced at 4 (8.7%) of these sites. Apple iOS devices accounted for the majority (70%) of institutional mobile devices. Most sites provided between 1 and 5 medical apps on the institutional mobile device. The British National Formulary (BNF/BNFc) app was the app which was most frequently provided and recommended. No site reported any harm from medical app use. CONCLUSION: The breadth of app use was relatively low. There was variability in trust guidance on app use and challenges in accessibility of Wi-Fi and devices.