Implementation and outcomes of a comprehensive emergency care curriculum at a low-resource referral hospital in Liberia: A novel approach to application of the WHO Basic Emergency Care toolkit.

BACKGROUND: Emergency care is vital in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) but many frontline healthcare workers in low-resource settings have no formal training in emergency care. To address this gap, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed Basic Emergency Care (BEC): Approach to the acutely ill and injured, a multi-day, open-source course for healthcare workers in low-resource settings. Building on the BEC foundation, this study uses an implementation science (IS) lens to develop, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive emergency care curriculum in a single emergency facility in Liberia. METHODS: A six-month emergency care curriculum consisting of BEC content, standardized WHO clinical documentation forms, African Federation of Emergency Medicine (AFEM) didactics, and clinical mentorship by visiting emergency medicine (EM) faculty was designed and implemented using IS frameworks at Redemption Hospital, a low-resource public referral hospital in Monrovia, the capital of Liberia. Healthcare worker performance on validated knowledge-based exams during pre- and post-intervention testing, post-course surveys, and patient outcomes were used to evaluate the program. RESULTS: Nine visiting EM physicians provided 1400 hours of clinical mentorship and 560 hours of didactic training to fifty-six Redemption Hospital staff over six-months. Median test scores improved 20.0% (p<0.001) among the forty-three healthcare workers who took both the pre- and post-intervention tests. Participants reported increased confidence in caring for medical and trauma patients and comfort performing emergency care tasks on post-course surveys. Emergency unit (EU)/Isolation unit (IU) mortality decreased during the six-month implementation period, albeit non-significantly. Course satisfaction was high across multiple domains. DISCUSSION: This study builds on prior research supporting WHO efforts to improve emergency care globally. BEC implementation over a six-month timeframe using IS principles is an effective alternative strategy for facilities in resource-constrained environments wishing to strengthen emergency care delivery.

Emergency department antimicrobial use in a low-resource setting: results from a retrospective observational study at a referral hospital in Liberia.

OBJECTIVE: Data on antimicrobial use in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain limited. In Liberia, the absence of local data impedes surveillance and may lead to suboptimal treatment, injudicious use and resistance against antimicrobials. This study aims to examine antimicrobial prescribing patterns for patients in the emergency department (ED) of a large Liberian public hospital. Secondarily, this prescribing was compared with WHO prescribing indicators. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: An adult ED of a large public hospital in Monrovia, Liberia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1082 adult patients (>18 years of age) were recorded in the ED, from 1 January to 30 June 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number, type and name of antimicrobials ordered per patient were presented as number and percentages, with comparison to known WHO prescribing indicators. Pearson χ2 tests were used to assess patient variables and trends in medication use. RESULTS: Of the total patients, 44.0% (n=476) were female and the mean age was 40.2 years (SD=17.4). An average of 2.78 (SD=2.02) medicines were prescribed per patient encounter. At least one antimicrobial was ordered for 64.5% encounters (n=713) and two or more antimicrobials for 35.7% (n=386). All antimicrobial orders in our sample used the generic name. Ceftriaxone, metronidazole and ampicillin were the most common and accounted for 61.2% (n=743) of antimicrobial prescriptions. The majority (99.9%, n=1211) of antimicrobials prescribed were from the WHO Essential Drugs List. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first on ED-specific antimicrobial use in LMICs. We revealed a high rate of antimicrobial prescription, regardless of patient demographic or diagnosis. While empiric antimicrobial use is justified in certain acute clinical scenarios, the high rate from this setting warrants further investigation. The results of this study underscore the importance of ED surveillance to develop targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions and improve patient care.

A Review of COVID-19-Related Publications and Lag Times During the First Six Months of the Year 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals. METHODS: We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications. RESULTS: The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts. CONCLUSION: We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.