The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) Network: Challenges and Lessons Learned.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network was formed to generate and translate evidence to improve global emergency care. We share the challenges faced and lessons learned in establishing a global research network. METHODS: We describe the challenges encountered when EMERGE proposed the development of a global emergency department (ED) visit registry. The proposed registry was to be a six-month, retrospective, deidentified, minimal dataset of routinely collected variables, such as patient demographics, diagnosis, and disposition. RESULTS: Obtaining reliable, accurate, and pertinent data from participating EDs is challenging in a global context. Barriers experienced ranged from variable taxonomies, need for language translation, varying site processes for curation and transfer of deidentified data, navigating institution- and country-specific data protection regulations, and substantial variation in each participating institution's research infrastructure including training in research-related activities. We have overcome many of these challenges by creating detailed data-sharing agreements with bilateral regulatory oversight agreements between EMERGE and participating EDs, developing relationships with and training health informaticians at each site to ensure secure transfer of deidentified data, and formalizing an electronic transfer process ensuring data privacy. CONCLUSION: We believe that networks like EMERGE are integral to providing the necessary platforms for education, training, and research collaborations for emergency care. We identified substantial challenges in data sharing and variation in local sites' research infrastructure and propose potential approaches to address these challenges.

A Global Survey of Emergency Department Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) globally are addressing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with varying degrees of success. We leveraged the 17-country, Emergency Medicine Education & Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network and non-EMERGE ED contacts to understand ED emergency preparedness and practices globally when combating the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We electronically surveyed EMERGE and non-EMERGE EDs from April 3-June 1, 2020 on ED capacity, pandemic preparedness plans, triage methods, staffing, supplies, and communication practices. The survey was available in English, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish to optimize participation. We analyzed survey responses using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 74/129 (57%) EDs from 28 countries in all six World Health Organization global regions responded. Most EDs were in Asia (49%), followed by North America (28%), and Europe (14%). Nearly all EDs (97%) developed and implemented protocols for screening, testing, and treating patients with suspected COVID-19 infections. Sixty percent responded that provider staffing/back-up plans were ineffective. Many sites (47/74, 64%) reported staff missing work due to possible illness with the highest provider proportion of COVID-19 exposures and infections among nurses. CONCLUSION: Despite having disaster plans in place, ED pandemic preparedness and response continue to be a challenge. Global emergency research networks are vital for generating and disseminating large-scale event data, which is particularly important during a pandemic.

The preventability of trauma-related death at a tertiary hospital in Ghana: a multidisciplinary panel review approach.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the study was to determine the preventable trauma-related death rate (PDR) at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital in Kumasi, Ghana three years after initiation of an Emergency Medicine (EM) residency. METHOD: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study. A multidisciplinary panel of physicians completed a structured implicit review of clinical data for trauma patients who died during the period 2011 to 2012. The panel judged the preventability of each death and the nature of inappropriate care. Categories were definitely preventable (DP), possibly preventable (PP), and not preventable (NP). RESULTS: 1) The total number of cases was forty-five; 36 cases had adequate data for review. Subjects were predominately male; road traffic injury (RTI) was the leading mechanism of injury. Four cases (11.1%) were DP, 14 cases (38.9%) were PP and 18 (50%) were NP. Hemorrhage was the leading cause of death (39%). Among DP/PP deaths there were 37 instances of inappropriate care. Delay in surgical intervention was the predominate event (50%). 2) The PDR for this study was 50% (0.95 CI, 33.7%-66.3%). CONCLUSION: Fifty percent of trauma deaths were DP/PP. Multiple episodes of varying types of inappropriate care occurred. More efficient surgical evaluation and appropriate treatment of hemorrhage could reduce trauma morality. Large amounts of missing and incomplete clinical data suggest considerable selection bias. A major implication of this study is the importance of having a robust, prospective trauma registry to collect clinical information to increase the number of cases for review.