To date, the practice of global emergency medicine (GEM) has involved being “on the ground” supporting in‐country training of local learners, conducting research, and providing clinical care. This face‐to‐face interaction has been understood as critically important for developing partnerships and building trust. The COVID‐19 pandemic has brought significant uncertainty worldwide, including international travel restrictions of indeterminate permanence. Following the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine meeting, the Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) sought to enhance collective understanding of best practices in GEM training with a focus on multidirectional education and remote collaboration in the setting of COVID‐19. GEMA members led an initiative to outline thematic areas deemed most pertinent to the continued implementation of impactful GEM programming within the physical and technologic confines of a pandemic. Eighteen GEM practitioners were divided into four workgroups to focus on the following themes: advances in technology, valuation, climate impacts, skill translation, research/scholastic projects, and future challenges. Several opportunities were identified: broadened availability of technology such as video conferencing, Internet, and smartphones; online learning; reduced costs of cloud storage and printing; reduced carbon footprint; and strengthened local leadership. Skills and knowledge bases of GEM practitioners, including practicing in resource‐poor settings and allocation of scarce resources, are translatable domestically. The COVID‐19 pandemic has accelerated a paradigm shift in the practice of GEM, identifying a previously underrecognized potential to both strengthen partnerships and increase accessibility. This time of change has provided an opportunity to enhance multidirectional education and remote collaboration to improve global health equity.
Introduction: Rwanda has made significant advancements in medical and economic development over the last 20 years and has emerged as a leader in healthcare in the East African region. The COVID-19 pandemic, which reached Rwanda in March 2020, presented new and unique challenges for infectious disease control. The objective of this paper is to characterize Rwanda’s domestic response to the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight effective strategies so that other countries, including high and middle-income countries, can learn from its innovative initiatives. Methods: Government publications describing Rwanda’s healthcare capacity were first consulted to obtain the country’s baseline context. Next, official government and healthcare system communications, including case counts, prevention and screening protocols, treatment facility practices, and behavioral guidelines for the public, were read thoroughly to understand the course of the pandemic in Rwanda and the specific measures in the response. Results: As of 31 December 2020, Rwanda has recorded 8,383 cumulative COVID-19 cases, 6,542 recoveries, and 92 deaths since the first case on 14 March 2020. The Ministry of Health, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, and the Epidemic and Surveillance Response division have collaborated on preparative measures since the pandemic began in January 2020. The formation of a Joint Task Force in early March led to the Coronavirus National Preparedness and Response Plan, an extensive six-month plan that established a national incident management system and detailed four phases of a comprehensive national response. Notable strategies have included disseminating public information through drones, robots for screening and inpatient care, and official communications through social media platforms to combat misinformation and mobilize a cohesive response from the population. Conclusion: Rwanda’s government and healthcare system has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with innovative interventions to prevent and contain the virus. Importantly, the response has utilized adaptive and innovative technology and robust risk communication and community engagement to deliver an effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
BackgroundCorona Virus Disease , caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which originated in Wuhan, China in late 2019, has spread across the globe, rapidly reaching classification as a pandemic. As of September 24, 2020, more than 31.7 million cases and 973,000 deaths have been identified worldwide and nearly every country has been impacted. 1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance data, the African region (AFRO) has 1,154,171 confirmed cases and 24,464 deaths from COVID-19 as of September 24, 2020. 1,2 Although there is optimism that the pandemic response in Africa will be informed by efforts from other regions of the world, there are unique socioeconomic and health aspects in the African context. 3 Additionally, Africa faces a number of challenges in identifying and treating COVID-19 cases, including low relative per-capita health resources, a rapidly growing population, and multiple endemic infectious diseases. 4
BackgroundApproximately 80% of patients presenting to emergency departments (ED) with chest pain do not have any true cardiopulmonary emergency such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, psychological contributors such as anxiety are thought to be present in up to 58%, but often remain undiagnosed leading to chronic chest pain and ED recidivism.MethodsTo evaluate ED provider beliefs and their usual practices regarding the approach and disposition of patients with low risk chest pain associated with anxiety, we constructed a 22-item survey using a modified Delphi technique. The survey was administered to a convenience sample of ED providers attending the 2016 American College of Emergency Physicians Scientific Assembly in Las Vegas.ResultsSurveys were completed by 409 emergency medicine providers from 46 states and 7 countries with a wide range of years of experience and primary practice environment (academic versus community centers). Respondents estimated that 30% of patients presenting to the ED with chest pain thought to be low risk for ACS have anxiety or panic as the primary cause but they directly communicate this belief to only 42% of these patients and provide discharge instructions to 48%. Only 39% of respondents reported adequate hospital resources to ensure follow-up. Community-based providers reported more adequate follow-up for these patients than their academic center colleagues (46% vs. 34%; p = 0.015). Most providers (82%) indicated that they wanted to have referral resources available to a specific clinic for further outpatient evaluation.ConclusionEmergency Department providers believe approximately 30% of patients seeking emergency care for chest pain at low risk for ACS have anxiety as a primary problem, yet fewer than half discuss this concern or provide information to help the patient manage anxiety. This highlights an opportunity for patient centered communication.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-018-0161-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Honey bee envenomations are a common occurrence and cause localized morbidity but rarely cause systemic symptoms or death in humans. Honey bee stingers have a uniquely designed venom sac with a piston-containing bifurcated stinger that can remain in human skin and continue injecting venom after stinging. For some time, it has been proposed that a retained honey bee stinger should be scraped out by a dull edge, as opposed to pinching and pulling out the stinger, in order to minimize the volume of venom injected. We undertook a literature review to evaluate the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of methods of honey bee stinger removal. The initial search identified 23 articles of interest; following title and abstract screening, two studies met the inclusion criteria. The included articles used different methods and models to evaluate the relationship between venom injection over time, and one of these studies also compared different methods of stinger removal. The literature review was limited by the small number of studies on the topic, but both included studies include findings relevant to the clinical question of interest. Based on the available evidence, a retained honey bee stinger should be removed as quickly as possible, and there appears to be no disadvantage in doing it by pinching and pulling.
Background In response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Project HOPE®, an international humanitarian organization, partnered with Brown University to develop and deploy a virtual training-of-trainers (TOT) program to provide practical knowledge to healthcare stakeholders. This study is designed to evaluate this TOT program. Objective The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of this educational intervention in enhancing knowledge on COVID-19 concepts and to present relative change in score of each competency domains of the training. Methods The training was created by interdisciplinary faculty from Brown University and delivered virtually. Training included eight COVID-19 specific modules on infection prevention and control, screening and triage, diagnosis and management, stabilization and resuscitation, surge capacity, surveillance, and risk communication and community education. The assessment of knowledge attainment in each of the course competency domain was conducted using 10 question pre-and post-test evaluations. Paired t-test were used to compare interval knowledge scores in the overall cohort and stratified by WHO regions. TOT dissemination data was collected from in-country partners by Project Hope. Results Over the period of 7 months, 4,291 personnel completed the TOT training in 55 countries, including all WHO regions. Pre-test and post-test were completed by 1,198 and 706 primary training participants, respectively. The mean scores on the pre-test and post-test were 68.45% and 81.4%, respectively. The mean change in score was 11.72%, with P value <0.0005. All WHO regions had a statistically significant improvement in their score in post-test. The training was disseminated to 97,809 health workers through local secondary training. Conclusion Innovative educational tools resulted in improvement in knowledge related to the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly increasing the average score on knowledge assessment testing. Academic – humanitarian partnerships can serve to implement and disseminate effective education rapidly across the globe.
Emergency departments (EDs) in Africa are contact points for key groups for HIV testing services (HTS) but understanding of ED-testing delivery is limited which may impeded program impacts. This study evaluated the offering and uptake of standard HTS among injured persons seeking ED care at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) in Nairobi, Kenya. An ED population of adult injured persons was prospectively enrolled (1 March—25 May 2021) and followed through ED disposition. Participants requiring admission were followed through hospital discharge and willing participants were contacted at 28-days for follow up. Data on population characteristics and HTS were collected by personnel distinct from clinicians responsible for standard HTS. Descriptive analyses were performed and prevalence values with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for HIV parameters. The study enrolled 646 participants. The median age was 29 years with the majority male (87.8%). Most ED patients were discharged (58.9%). A prior HIV diagnosis was reported by 2.3% of participants and 52.7% reported their last testing as >6 months prior. Standard ED-HTS were offered to 49 or 8.6% of participants (95% CI: 5.8–9.9%), among which 89.8% accepted. For ED-tested participants 11.4% were newly diagnosed with HIV (95% CI: 5.0–24.0%). Among 243 participants admitted, testing was offered to 6.2% (95% CI: 3.9–9.9%), with 93.8% accepting. For admitted participants tested 13.3% (95% CI: 4.0–35.1%) were newly diagnosed (all distinct from ED cases). At 28-day follow up an additional 22 participants reported completing testing since ED visitation, with three newly diagnosed. During the full follow-up period the HIV prevalence in the population tested was 10.3% (95% CI: 5.3–19.0%); all being previously undiagnosed. Offering of standard HTS was infrequent, however, when offered, uptake and identification of new HIV diagnoses were high. These data suggest that opportunities exist to improve ED-HTS which could enhance identification of undiagnosed HIV.
Objective The specialty of emergency medicine and recognition of the need for emergency care continue to grow globally. The specialty and emergency care systems vary according to context. This study characterizes the specialty of emergency medicine around the world, trends according to region and income level, and challenges for the specialty. Methods We distributed a 56‐question electronic survey to all members of the American College of Emergency Physicians International Ambassador Program between March 2019 and January 2020. The Ambassador Program leadership designed the survey covering specialty recognition, workforce, system components, and emergency medicine training. We analyzed results by country and in aggregate using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc). We tested the associations between World Bank income group and number of emergency medicine residency‐trained physicians (RTPs) and emergency medicine specialty recognition using non‐parametric Fisher's exact testing. We performed inductive coding of qualitative data for themes. Results Sixty‐three out of 78 countries’ teams (80%) responded to the survey. Response countries represented roughly 67% of the world's population and included countries in all World Bank income groups. Fifty‐four countries (86%) recognized emergency medicine as a specialty. Ten (16%) had no emergency medicine residency programs, and 19 (30%) had only one. Eight (11%) reported having no emergency medicine RTPs and 30 (48%) had <100. Fifty‐seven (90%) had an emergency medical services (EMS) system, and 52 (83%) had an emergency access number. Higher country income was associated with a higher number of emergency medicine RTPs per capita (P = 0.02). Only 6 countries (8%) had >5 emergency medicine RTPs per 100,000 population, all high income. All 5 low‐income countries in the sample had <2 emergency medicine RTPs per 100,000 population. Challenges in emergency medicine development included lack of resources (38%), burnout and poor working conditions (31%), and low salaries (23%). Conclusions Most surveyed countries recognized emergency medicine as a specialty. However, numbers of emergency medicine RTPs were small, particularly in lower income countries. Most surveyed countries reported an EMS system and emergency access number. Lack of resources, burnout, and poor pay were major threats to emergency medicine growth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.