RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2021, the Nepal national emergency care system's assessment (ECSA) identified 39 activities and 11 facility-specific goals to improve care. To support implementation of the ECSA facility-based goals, this pilot study used the World Health Organization's (WHO) Hospital Emergency Unit Assessment Tool (HEAT) to evaluate key functions of emergency care at tertiary hospitals in Kathmandu, Nepal. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the standardized HEAT assessment tool. Data on facility characteristics, human resources, clinical services, and signal functions were gathered via key informant interviews conducted by trained study personnel. Seven tertiary referral centers in the Kathmandu valley were selected for pilot evaluation including governmental, academic, and private hospitals. Descriptive statistics were generated, and comparative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: All facilities had continuous emergency care services but differed in the extent of availability of each item surveyed. Academic institutions had the highest rating with greater availability of consulting services and capacity to perform specific signal functions including breathing interventions and sepsis care. Private institutions had the highest infrastructure availability and diagnostic testing capacity. Across all facilities, common barriers included lack of training of key emergency procedures, written protocols, point-of-care testing, and ancillary patient services. CONCLUSION: This pilot assessment demonstrates that the current emergency care capacity at representative tertiary referral hospitals in Kathmandu, Nepal is variable with some consistent barriers which preclude meeting the ECSA goals. The results can be used to inform emergency care development within Nepal and demonstrate that the WHO HEAT assessment is feasible and may be instructive in systematically advancing emergency care delivery at the national level if implemented more broadly.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Optimal thromboprophylaxis for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is uncertain. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive platform trial, we randomly assigned hospitalized adults with Covid-19 to low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis or intermediate-dose or low-dose plus aspirin. In response to external evidence, the aspirin intervention was discontinued and a therapeutic-dose arm added. The primary end point was death or the requirement for new organ support by day 28, analyzed with a Bayesian logistic model. Enrolment was closed as a result of operational constraints. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and March 2022, 1574 patients were randomly assigned. Among 1526 participants included in the analysis (India, n=1273; Australia and New Zealand, n=138; and Nepal, n=115), the primary outcome occurred in 35 (5.9%) of 596 in low-dose, 25 (4.2%) of 601 in intermediate-dose, 20 (7.2%) of 279 in low-dose plus aspirin, and 7 (14%) of 50 in therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Compared with low-dose thromboprophylaxis, the median adjusted odds ratio for the primary outcome for intermediate-dose was 0.74 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.43 to 1.27; posterior probability of effectiveness [adjusted odds ratio<1; Pr], 86%), for low-dose plus aspirin 0.88 (95% CrI, 0.47 to 1.64; Pr, 65%), and for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation 2.22 (95% CrI, 0.77 to 6.20; Pr, 7%). Overall thrombotic and bleeding rates were 0.8% and 0.4%, respectively. There were 10 serious adverse reactions related to anticoagulation strategy, of which nine were grade 1 or 2 across study interventions and one grade 4 episode of retroperitoneal hematoma in a patient receiving intermediate-dose anticoagulation. CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized noncritically ill adults with Covid-19, compared with low-dose, there was an 86% posterior probability that intermediate-dose, 65% posterior probability that low-dose plus aspirin, and a 7% posterior probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation reduced the odds of death or requirement for organ support. No treatment strategy met prespecified stopping criteria before trial closure, precluding definitive conclusions. (Funded by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council or Medical Research Future Fund Investigator and Practitioner Grants and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04483960.)