A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest: Implications for Resource-limited Health Systems.

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a prevalent condition with high mortality and poor outcomes even in settings where extensive emergency care resources are available. Interventions to address OHCA have had limited success, with survival rates below 10% in national samples of high-income countries. In resource-limited settings, where scarcity requires careful priority setting, more data is needed to determine the optimal allocation of resources. Objective: To establish the cost-effectiveness of OHCA care and assess the affordability of interventions across income settings. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of economic evaluations on interventions to address OHCA. Included studies were (1) economic evaluations (beyond a simple costing exercise); and (2) assessed an intervention in the chain of survival for OHCA. Article quality was assessed using the CHEERs checklist and data summarised. Findings were reported by major themes identified by the reviewers. Based upon the results of the cost-effectiveness analyses we then conduct an analysis for the progressive realization of the OHCA chain of survival from the perspective of decision-makers facing resource constraints. Results: 468 unique articles were screened, and 46 articles were included for final data abstraction. Studies predominantly used a healthcare sector perspective, modeled for all patients experiencing non-traumatic cardiac OHCA, were based in the US, and presented results in US Dollars. No studies reported results or used model inputs from low-income settings. Progressive realization of the chain of survival could likely begin with investments in TOR protocols, professional prehospital defibrillator use, and CPR training followed by distribution of AEDs in high-density public locations. Finally, other interventions such as indiscriminate defibrillator placement or adrenaline use, would be the lowest priority for early investment. Conclusion: Our review found no high-quality evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating OHCA in low-resource settings. Existing evidence can be utilized to develop a roadmap for the development of a cost-effective approach to OHCA care, however further economic evaluations using context-specific data are crucial to accurately inform prioritization of scarce resources within emergency care in these settings.

Inequities in COVID-19-Related Patient Outcomes by Socio-Demographic Characteristics: A Scoping Review.

Socio-demographic inequities in health treatment and outcomes are not new. However, the COVID-19 pandemic presented new opportunities to examine and address biases. This article describes a scoping review of 170 papers published prior to the onset of global vaccinations and treatment (December 2021). We report differentiated COVID-19-related patient outcomes for people with various socio-demographic characteristics, including the need for intubation and ventilation, intensive care unit admission, discharge to hospice care, and mortality. Using the PROGRESS-Plus framework, we determined that the most researched socio-demographic factor was race/ethnicity/culture/language. Members of minoritized racial and ethnic groups tended to have worse COVID-19-related patient outcomes; more research is needed about other categories of social disadvantage, given the scarcity of literature on these factors at the time of the review. It is only by researching and addressing the causes of social disadvantage that we can avoid such injustice in future public health crises.

Defining measures of emergency care access in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Over 50% of annual deaths in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) could be averted through access to high-quality emergency care. OBJECTIVES: We performed a scoping review of the literature that described at least one measure of emergency care access in LMICs in order to understand relevant barriers to emergency care systems. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies published between 1 January 1990 and 30 December 2020, with one or more discrete measure(s) of access to emergency health services in LMICs described. SOURCE OF EVIDENCE: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the grey literature. CHARTING METHODS: A structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify the number of 'unique' measures, and the number of times each unique measure was studied in the literature ('total' measures). Measures of access were categorised by access type, defined by Thomas and Penchansky, with further categorisation according to the 'Three Delay' model of seeking, reaching and receiving care, and the WHO's Emergency Care Systems Framework (ECSF). RESULTS: A total of 3103 articles were screened. 75 met full study inclusion. Articles were uniformly descriptive (n=75, 100%). 137 discrete measures of access were reported. Unique measures of accommodation (n=42, 30.7%) and availability (n=40, 29.2%) were most common. Measures of seeking, reaching and receiving care were 22 (16.0%), 46 (33.6%) and 69 (50.4%), respectively. According to the ECSF slightly more measures focused on prehospital care-inclusive of care at the scene and through transport to a facility (n=76, 55.4%) as compared with facility-based care (n=57, 41.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Numerous measures of emergency care access are described in the literature, but many measures are overaddressed. Development of a core set of access measures with associated minimum standards are necessary to aid in ensuring universal access to high-quality emergency care in all settings.

The ethical considerations for emergency care research in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review of the published literature.

INTRODUCTION: Research studies on emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many ethical considerations, including obtaining valid informed consent from vulnerable patients. This study aims to describe the body of literature related to the ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in low- and middle-income settings. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify literature published between 2000 and 2020 related to ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in the LMIC setting. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate, and full texts were reviewed and extracted by the principal author. RESULTS: In total, 1087 articles were identified and 17 articles were included. Major themes identified in the literature included risk versus benefit assessments, patient vulnerabilities, consent, community engagement, clinical roles, ancillary care provision, and regulation of research. Alternative models of consent are often used in emergency care research, including surrogate consent, community consent, and waiver of consent. Challenges and best practices with these alternative models of consent in LMICs are discussed. DISCUSSION: Gaps remain in the literature describing the ethics of emergency care research in LMICs, including clear guidelines for protecting vulnerable patients and designing ethical consent processes. Best practices identified include community engagement for designing research studies, identifying acceptable risk profiles, and allocating benefits. Continuous and rigorous assessment of the quality of consent is also needed.

Potential solutions for screening, triage, and severity scoring of suspected COVID-19 positive patients in low-resource settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Purposefully designed and validated screening, triage, and severity scoring tools are needed to reduce mortality of COVID-19 in low-resource settings (LRS). This review aimed to identify currently proposed and/or implemented methods of screening, triaging, and severity scoring of patients with suspected COVID-19 on initial presentation to the healthcare system and to evaluate the utility of these tools in LRS. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted to identify studies describing acute screening, triage, and severity scoring of patients with suspected COVID-19 published between 12 December 2019 and 1 April 2021. Extracted information included clinical features, use of laboratory and imaging studies, and relevant tool validation data. PARTICIPANT: The initial search strategy yielded 15 232 articles; 124 met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies were from China (n=41, 33.1%) or the United States (n=23, 18.5%). In total, 57 screening, 23 triage, and 54 severity scoring tools were described. A total of 51 tools-31 screening, 5 triage, and 15 severity scoring-were identified as feasible for use in LRS. A total of 37 studies provided validation data: 4 prospective and 33 retrospective, with none from low-income and lower middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a number of screening, triage, and severity scoring tools implemented and proposed for patients with suspected COVID-19. No tools were specifically designed and validated in LRS. Tools specific to resource limited contexts is crucial to reducing mortality in the current pandemic.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Identification and Triage of Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Effective identification and prognostication of severe COVID-19 patients presenting to healthcare facilities are essential to reducing morbidity and mortality. Low- and middle-income country (LMIC) facilities often suffer from restrictions in availability of human resources, laboratory testing, medications, and imaging during routine functioning, and such shortages may worsen during times of surge. Low- and middle-income country healthcare providers will need contextually appropriate tools to identify and triage potential COVID-19 patients. We report on a series of LMIC-appropriate recommendations and suggestions for screening and triage of COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on a pragmatic, experience-based appraisal of existing literature. We recommend that all patients be screened upon first contact with the healthcare system using a locally approved questionnaire to identify individuals who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19. We suggest that primary screening tools used to identify individuals who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19 include a broad range of signs and symptoms based on standard case definitions of COVID-19 disease. We recommend that screening include endemic febrile illness per routine protocols upon presentation to a healthcare facility. We recommend that, following screening and implementation of appropriate universal source control measures, suspected COVID-19 patients be triaged with a triage tool appropriate for the setting. We recommend a standardized severity score based on the WHO COVID-19 disease definitions be assigned to all suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients before their disposition from the emergency unit. We suggest against using diagnostic imaging to improve triage of reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients, unless a patient has worsening respiratory status. We suggest against the use of point-of-care lung ultrasound to improve triage of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. We suggest the use of diagnostic imaging to improve sensitivity of appropriate triage in suspected COVID-19 patients who are RT-PCR negative but have moderate to severe symptoms and are suspected of a false-negative RT-PCR with high risk of disease progression. We suggest the use of diagnostic imaging to improve sensitivity of appropriate triage in suspected COVID-19 patients with moderate or severe clinical features who are without access to RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2.