Over the last few decades, maternal health has been a major focus of the international community and this has resulted in a substantial decrease in maternal mortality globally. Although, compared with maternal illness, medical and surgical emergencies account for far more morbidity and mortality, there has been less focus on global efforts to improve comprehensive emergency systems. The thoughtful and specific application of the concepts used in the effort to decrease maternal mortality could lead to major improvements in global emergency health services. The so-called three-delay model that was developed for maternal mortality can be adapted to emergency service delivery. Adaptation of evaluation frameworks to include emergency sentinel conditions could allow effective monitoring of emergency facilities and further policy development. Future global emergency health efforts may benefit from incorporating strategies for the planning and evaluation of high-impact interventions.

A major barrier to successful integration of acute care into health systems is the lack of consensus on the essential components of emergency care within resource-limited environments. The 2013 African Federation of Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference was convened to address the growing need for practical solutions to further implementation of emergency care in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 40 participants from 15 countries participated in the working group that focused on emergency care delivery at health facilities. Using the well-established approach developed in the WHO's Monitoring Emergency Obstetric Care, the workgroup identified the essential services delivered-signal functions-associated with each emergency care sentinel condition. Levels of emergency care were assigned based on the expected capacity of the facility to perform signal functions, and the necessary human, equipment and infrastructure resources identified. These consensus-based recommendations provide the foundation for objective facility capacity assessment in developing emergency health systems that can bolster strategic planning as well as facilitate monitoring and evaluation of service delivery.

BackgroundFrontline providers around the world deliver emergency care daily, often without prior dedicated training. In response to multiple country requests for open-access, basic emergency care training materials, the World Health Organization (WHO), in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM), undertook development of a course for health care providers—Basic Emergency Care: Approach to the acutely ill and injured (BEC). As part of course development, pilots were performed in Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and Zambia to evaluate course feasibility and appropriateness. Here we describe participant and facilitator feedback and pre- and post-course exam performance.MethodsA mixed methods research design incorporated pre- and post-course surveys as well as participant examination results to assess the feasibility and utility of the course, and knowledge transfer. Quantitative data were analyzed using Stata, and simple descriptive statistics were used to describe participant demographics. Survey data were coded and grouped by themes and analyzed using ATLAS.ti.ResultsPost-course test scores showed significant improvement (p-value < 0.05) as compared to pre-course. Pre- and post-course questionnaires demonstrated significantly increased confidence in managing emergency conditions. Participant-reported course strengths included course appropriateness, structure, language level and delivery methods. Suggested changes included expanding the 4-day duration of the course.ConclusionThis pilot demonstrates that a low-fidelity, open-access course taught by local instructors can be successful in knowledge transfer. The BEC course was well-received and deemed context-relevant by pilot facilitators and participants in three East African countries. Further studies are needed to evaluate this course’s impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Background: More than half of deaths in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) result from conditions that could be treated with emergency care-an integral component of universal health coverage (UHC)-through timely access to lifesaving interventions. Methods: The World Health Organization (WHO) aims to extend UHC to a further 1 billion people by 2023, yet evidence supporting improved emergency care coverage is lacking. In this article, we explore four phases of a research prioritisation setting (RPS) exercise conducted by researchers and stakeholders from

No abstract

Background: Despite the growing interest in the development of emergency care systems and emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty globally, there still exists a significant gap between the need for and the provision of emergency care by specialty trained providers. Many efforts to date to expand the practice of EM have focused on programs developed through partnerships between higher-and lower-resource settings. Objective: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the composition of EM training programs in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) developed through partnerships. Methods: An electronic search was conducted using four databases for manuscripts on EM training programs-defined as structured education and/or training in the methods, procedures, and techniques of acute or emergency care-developed through partnerships. The search produced 7702 results. Using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria, 94 manuscripts were included. After scoring these manuscripts, a more in-depth examination of 26 of the high-scoring manuscripts was conducted. Findings: Fifteen highlight programs with a focus on specific EM content (i.e. ultrasound) and 11 cover EM programs with broader scopes. All outline programs with diverse curricula and varied educational and evaluative methods spanning from short courses to full residency programs, and they target learners from medical students and nurses to mid-level providers and physicians. Challenges of EM program development through partnerships include local adaptation of international materials; addressing the local culture(s) of learning, assessment, and practice; evaluation of impact; sustainability; and funding. Conclusions: Overall, this review describes a diverse group of programs that have been or are currently being implemented through partnerships. Additionally, it highlights several areas for program development, including addressing other topic areas within EM beyond trauma and ultrasound and evaluating outcomes beyond the level of the learner. These steps to develop effective programs will further the advancement of EM as a specialty and enhance the development of effective emergency care systems globally.

Emergency care systems (ECS) are undergoing a period of rapid development on the African continent. What were formerly large intake zones are now being shaped into dedicated emergency units. Emergency care providers are being trained via certificate and even residency programs. However, significant challenges still exist. Resource limitations, staffing, and other system inputs are often the easiest issues to identify, but they only account for part of the problem. There are other prominent barriers to the delivery of high quality emergency care including lack of governmental leadership, poor system and facility organization, lack of provider training, and community misunderstanding of ECS functions. Released in May 2019, World Health Assembly (WHA) 72 resolution 12.9 “Emergency care systems for universal health coverage: ensuring timely care for the acutely ill and injured” has squarely placed ECS strengthening as a priority item to member state governments. Moving forward, it will be important to ensure that these systems are set up for success, as high-quality emergency care systems have the potential to avert half of all deaths in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). With momentum building from the recent WHA amendment and the health systems community more focused than ever on the consideration of quality in health systems design, it is of the utmost importance that ECS planners dovetail these interests such that these nascent systems are designed while 1) applying a systems thinking lens and 2) maintaining a focus on quality. This article helps to accomplish this by breaking down ECS into five major categories for evaluation as defined by the WHO Emergency Care Systems Assessment tool, providing an understanding of the functions of each, and identifying which indicators might be used to gauge performance. We also reinforce the notion that these indicators must dive deeper than system inputs and health outcomes, they must be patient centered in order to truly be reflective of success.

No abstract