ABSTRACT
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital health tools have been deployed by governments around the world to advance clinical and population health objectives. Few interventions have been successful or have achieved sustainability or scale. In India, government agencies are proposing sweeping changes to India's digital health architecture. Underpinning these initiatives is the assumption that mobile health solutions will find near universal acceptance and uptake, though the observed reticence of clinicians to use electronic health records suggests otherwise. In this practice article, we describe our experience with implementing a digital surveillance tool at a large mass gathering, attended by nearly 30 million people. Deployed with limited resources and in a dynamic chaotic setting, the adherence to human-centered design principles resulted in near universal adoption and high end-user satisfaction. Through this use case, we share generalizable lessons in the importance of contextual relevance, stakeholder participation, customizability, and rapid iteration, while designing digital health tools for individuals or populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , India , Mass Gatherings , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel SurveillanceABSTRACT
Background and objectives The most widely used emergency medical services (EMS) model in India is the '108' emergency service which primarily functions as an emergency response system to attend patients in need of critical care, trauma and accident victims. This is an observational cross-sectional study which was conducted using a questionnaire that asks the participants about their awareness and opinion of the current EMS system. The results of this study will enable us to ascertain the level of awareness of EMS among the population and address any misconceptions if they exist. Materials and methods All participants had to complete a 24-item self-administered questionnaire consisting of eight socio-demographic questions and 16 questions based on the EMS system. Questions regarding the development of the '112' unified emergency service were also included. The convenient sampling method was used for data collection. The distribution of responses was examined using frequencies and percentages. Further analysis was done using the Chi-square test to compare responses between various subgroups based on the age, gender, profession, and level of education. Results A total of 1220 people from the state of Maharashtra responded to the survey and the maximum responses were from Mumbai. Majority of the respondents (59.2%) were from the age group of 15 to 30 years and, most of our responders had received education at the graduate level or above (78.2%). Only 17.5% of the respondents said that they will try to check for responsiveness if they saw a person lying unconscious by the side of the road with the scene being free of any danger. Interestingly, 78.9% of the healthcare professionals who participated in this survey would not check for responsiveness. Only 76.2% of the respondents knew that '108' is the number to dial in case of a medical emergency and about a quarter of them was not aware of it. It may seem that a good number of people are aware of the number. However, with the high number of fatalities occurring every day due to lack of medical facilities and a high current annual death toll on the roads, 100% of the population should know the emergency number. Only 20.2% of the respondents had called the EMS and asked for an ambulance. 68.5% of the respondents would immediately move out of the way and 27.5% of them would move out of their way if the ambulance's lights and sirens were on. About two-thirds of the respondents were unaware of the development of a unified emergency number (112). However, a large majority (82.9%) were in favor of having a unified emergency number instead of a different number for each emergency. Only 43.8% of the respondents were of the opinion that the current EMS coverage was inadequate. 24.9% of the participants rated the current EMS as good, whereas 53.5% rated the EMS average and 16.9% rated it poor. Conclusions An effort should be made to make 100% of the population aware of this service. The first step for increasing awareness would be starting various advertisement campaigns. The next step would be to implement the unified emergency number (112) to address all kinds of distress calls such as police, fire, and ambulance. A very small proportion of the population is trained in first-aid or basic trauma life support. Awareness campaigns and training sessions for the general public should be conducted for the same. It is also necessary to spread awareness and help the populace know about the Good Samaritan law.