White Paper on Early Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient-these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single "best" care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country's current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient's geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Development of emergency medicine in Europe.

Emergency medicine (EM) is emerging worldwide. Its development as a recognized specialty is proceeding at difference rates in different countries. Europe is a region with complex political affiliations and is composed of countries both within and outside the European Union (EU). Europe is seeking greater standardization (harmonization) for mutually improved economic development. Medicine in general, and EM in particular, is no exception. In Europe, as in other regions, EM is struggling for acceptance as a valid field of specialization. The European Union of Medical Specialists requires that once two-fifths of countries acknowledge a specialty, all EU countries must address the question. EM had achieved the needed majority by 2011. This article briefly describes the European road to specialty acceptance.

Healthcare payment reforms across western countries on three continents: lessons from stakeholder preferences when asked to rate the supportiveness for fulfilling patients' needs.

UNLABELLED: To test the hypothesis that care typology-being complex and highly unpredictable versus being clear-cut and highly predictable-guides healthcare payment preferences of physicians, policy makers, healthcare executives, and researchers. We collected survey data from 942 stakeholders across Canada, Europe, Oceania, and the United States. A total of 48 international societies invited their members to participate in our study. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of stakeholder survey data linked to four scenarios of care typology: primary prevention, trial-and-error care, standard care and network care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified two "extremes": (1) dominant preferences of physicians, who embraced fee for service (FFS), even when this precludes the advantages of other payment systems associated with a minimal risk of harm (OR 1.85 for primary prevention; OR 1.89 for standard care, compared to non-physicians); and (2) the dominant preferences of healthcare executives and researchers, who supported quality bonus or adjustment (OR 1.92) and capitation (OR 2.05), respectively, even when these could cause harm. CONCLUSIONS: Based on exploratory findings, we can cautiously state that payment reform will prove to be difficult as long as physicians, healthcare executives, and researchers misalign payment systems with the nature of care. Replication studies are needed to (dis)confirm our findings within representative subsamples per area and stakeholder group.