ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This review aims to understand the present circumstances on the provision of prehospital trauma care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly scoping the challenges experienced by LMICs in this regard. The objective is to systematically evaluate the currently available evidence on this topic. Based on the themes and challenges identified in the provision of prehospital trauma care in LMICs, we provide a series of recommendations and a knowledge base for future research in the field. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of original articles that explored and reported on prehospital trauma care in LMIC in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to March 2022. All original articles reporting on prehospital trauma care from 2010 to 2022 in LMICs were assessed, excluding case reports, small case series, editorials, abstracts, and pre-clinical studies; those with data inconsistencies that impede data extraction; and those with study populations fewer than ten. RESULTS: The literature search identified 2,128 articles, of which 29 were included in this review, featuring 27,848 participants from LMICs countries. Four main areas of focus within the studies were identified: (1) exploring emergency service systems, frameworks, and interconnected networks within the context of prehospital trauma care; (2) transportation of patients from the response site to hospital care; (3) medical education and the effects of first responder training in LMICs; and (4) cultural and social factors influencing prehospital trauma care-seeking behaviors. Due to overarching gaps in social and health care systems, significant barriers exist at various stages of providing prehospital trauma care in LMICs, particularly in injury identification, seeking treatment, transportation to hospital, and receiving timely treatment and post-intervention support. CONCLUSION: The provision of prehospital trauma care in LMICs faces significant barriers at multiple levels, largely dependent on wider social, geographic, economic, and political factors impeding the development of such higher functioning systems within health care. However, there have been numerous breakthroughs within certain LMICs in different aspects of prehospital trauma care, supported to varying degrees by international initiatives, that serve as case studies for widespread implementation and targets. Such experiential learning is essential due to the heterogenous landscapes that comprise LMICs.
Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Humans , Developing Countries , Delivery of Health Care , HospitalsABSTRACT
Aims and methodWe assessed venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, barriers to prescribing VTE prophylaxis and completion of VTE risk assessment in psychiatric in-patients. This was a cross-sectional study conducted across three centres. We used the UK Department of Health VTE risk assessment tool which had been adapted for psychiatric patients. RESULTS: Of the 470 patients assessed, 144 (30.6%) were at increased risk of VTE. Patients on old age wards were more likely to be at increased risk than those on general adult wards (odds ratio = 2.26, 95% CI 1.51-3.37). Of those at higher risk of VTE, auditors recorded concerns about prescribing prophylaxis in 70 patients (14.9%). Only 20 (4.3%) patients had a completed risk assessment.Clinical implicationsMental health in-patients are likely to be at increased risk of VTE. VTE risk assessment is not currently embedded in psychiatric in-patient care. There is a need for guidance specific to this population.Declaration of interestNone.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: There is an increased reliance on online referral systems (ORS) within neurosurgical departments across the UK. Opinions of neurosurgeons on ORS are extensively reported but those of referrers have hardly been sought. Our study aims at ascertaining our referring colleagues' views on our ORS and its impact on patient care, their opinions on neurosurgeons and how to improve our referral process. SETTING: 14 district general hospitals and one teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 641 healthcare professionals across a range of medical and surgical specialties including doctors of all grades, nurses and physiotherapists. Survey responses were obtained by medical students using a smartphone application. RESULTS: Although 92% of respondents were aware of the ORS, 74% would routinely phone the on-call registrar either before or after making referrals online. The majority (44%) believed their call to relate to a life-threatening emergency. 62% of referrers considered the ORS helpful in informing patients' care and 48% had a positive opinion of their interaction with neurosurgical registrars. On ways to improve the ORS, 50% selected email/text confirmation of response sent to referrers and 16% to referring consultants. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that referrers feel that using our ORS positively impacts patient care but that it remains in need of improvement in order to better suit our colleagues' needs when it comes to managing neurosurgical patients. We feel that the promotion of neurosurgical education and mitigation of the effects of adverse workplace human factors are likely to achieve the common goal of neurosurgeons and referrers alike: a high standard in patient care.
