Hospital readiness for the provision of care to critically ill patients in Tanzania- an in-depth cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and potential for reversibility. The burden of critical illness is high, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Critical care can be provided as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC)- the effective, low-cost, basic care that all critically ill patients should receive in all parts of all hospitals in the world- and advanced critical care- complex, resource-intensive care usually provided in an intensive care unit. The required resources may be available in the hospital and yet not be ready in the wards for immediate use for critically ill patients. The ward readiness of these resources, although harder to evaluate, is likely more important than their availability in the hospital. This study aimed to assess the ward readiness for EECC and the hospital availability of resources for EECC and for advanced critical care in hospitals in Tanzania. METHODS: An in-depth, cross-sectional study was conducted in five purposively selected hospitals by visiting all wards to collect data on all the required 66 EECC and 161 advanced critical care resources. We defined hospital-availability as a resource present in the hospital and ward-readiness as a resource available, functioning, and present in the right place, time and amounts for critically ill patient care in the wards. Data were analyzed to calculate availability and readiness scores as proportions of the resources that were available at hospital level, and ready at ward level respectively. RESULTS: Availability of EECC resources in hospitals was 84% and readiness in the wards was 56%. District hospitals had lower readiness scores (less than 50%) than regional and tertiary hospitals. Equipment readiness was highest (65%) while that of guidelines lowest (3%). Availability of advanced critical care resources was 31%. CONCLUSION: Hospitals in Tanzania lack readiness for the provision of EECC- the low-cost, life-saving care for critically ill patients. The resources for EECC were available in hospitals, but were not ready for the immediate needs of critically ill patients in the wards. To provide effective EECC to all patients, improvements are needed around the essential, low-cost resources in hospital wards that are essential for decreasing preventable deaths.

Third delay in care of critically ill patients: a qualitative investigation of public hospitals in Kenya.

OBJECTIVES: Third delay refers to delays in delivering requisite care to patients after they arrive at a health facility. In low-resource care settings, effective triage and flow of care are difficult to guarantee. In this study, we aimed to identify delays in the delivery of care to critically ill patients and possible ways to address these delays. DESIGN: This was an exploratory qualitative study using in-depth interviews and patient journeys. The qualitative data were transcribed and aggregated into themes in NVivo V.12 Plus using inductive and deductive approaches. SETTING: This study was conducted in four secondary-level public Kenyan hospitals across four counties between March and December 2021. The selected hospitals were part of the Clinical Information Network. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling method was used to identify administrative and front-line healthcare providers and patients. We conducted 12 in-depth interviews with 11 healthcare workers and patient journeys of 7 patients. Informed consent was sought from the participants and maintained throughout the study. RESULTS: We identified a cycle of suboptimal systems for care with adaptive mechanisms that prevent quality care to critically ill patients. We identified suboptimal systems for identification of critical illness, inadequate resources for continuity care and disruption of the flow of care, as the major causes of delays in identification and the initiation of essential care to critically ill patients. Our study also illuminated the contribution of inflexible bureaucratic non-clinical business-related organisational processes to third delay. CONCLUSION: Eliminating or reducing delays after patients arrive at the hospital is a time-sensitive measure that could improve the care outcomes of critically ill patients. This is achievable through an essential emergency and critical care package within the hospitals. Our findings can help emphasise the need for standardised effective and reliable care priorities to maintain of care of critically ill patients.

Receive, Sustain, and Flow: A simple heuristic for facilitating the identification and treatment of critically ill patients during their hospital journeys.

Background: Hospital patients can become critically ill anywhere in a hospital but their survival is affected by problems of identification and adequate, timely, treatment. This is issue of particular concern in lower middle-income countries' (LMICs) hospitals where specialised units are scarce and severely under-resourced. "Cross-sectional" approaches to improving narrow, specific aspects of care will not attend to issues that affect patients' care across the length of their experience. A simpler approach to understanding key issues across the "hospital journey" could help to deliver life-saving treatments to those patients who need it, wherever they are in the facility. Methods: We carried out 31 narrative interviews with frontline health workers in five Kenyan and five Tanzanian hospitals from November 2020 to December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. We also followed 12 patient hospital journeys, through the course of treatment of very sick patients admitted to the hospitals we studied. Results: Our research explores gaps in hospital systems that result in lapses in effective, continuous care across the hospital journeys of patients in Tanzania and Kenya. We organise these factors according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) approach to patient safety, which we extend to explore how these issues affect patients across the course of care. We discern three repeating, recursive phases we term Receive, Sustain, and Flow. We use this heuristic to show how gaps and weaknesses in service provision affect critically ill patients' hospital journeys. Conclusion: Receive, Sustain, and Flow offers a heuristic for hospital management to identify and ameliorate limitations in human and technical resources for the care of the critically ill.

Hospital care for critical illness in low-resource settings: lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Care for the critically ill patients is often considered synonymous with a hospital having an intensive care unit. However, a focus on Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) may obviate the need for much intensive care. Severe COVID-19 presented a specific critical care challenge while also being an exemplar of critical illness in general. Our multidisciplinary team conducted research in Kenya and Tanzania on hospitals' ability to provide EECC as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. Important basic inputs were often lacking, especially sufficient numbers of skilled health workers. However, we learnt that higher scores on resource readiness scales were often misleading, as resources were often insufficient or not functional in all the clinical areas they are needed. By following patient journeys, through interviews and group discussions, we revealed gaps in timeliness, continuity and delivery of care. Generic challenges in transitions between departments were identified in the receipt of critically ill patients, the ability to sustain monitoring and treatment and preparation for any subsequent transition. While the global response to COVID-19 focused initially on providing technologies and training, first ventilators and later oxygen, organisational and procedural challenges seemed largely ignored. Yet, they may even be exacerbated by new technologies. Efforts to improve care for the critically ill patients, which is a complex process, must include a whole system and whole facility view spanning all areas of patients' care and their transitions and not be focused on a single location providing 'critical care'. We propose a five-part strategy to support the system changes needed.

Policies and resources for strengthening of emergency and critical care services in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya.

Critical illnesses cause several million deaths annually, with many of these occurring in low-resource settings like Kenya. Great efforts have been made worldwide to scale up critical care to reduce deaths from COVID-19. Lower income countries with fragile health systems may not have had sufficient resources to upscale their critical care. We aimed to review how efforts to strengthen emergency and critical care were operationalised during the pandemic in Kenya to point towards how future emergencies should be approached. This was an exploratory study that involved document reviews, and discussions with key stakeholders (donors, international agencies, professional associations, government actors), during the first year of the pandemic in Kenya. Our findings suggest that pre-pandemic health services for the critically ill in Kenya were sparse and unable to meet rising demand, with major limitations noted in human resources and infrastructure. The pandemic response saw galvanised action by the Government of Kenya and other agencies to mobilise resources (approximately USD 218 million). Earlier efforts were largely directed towards advanced critical care but since the human resource gap could not be reduced immediately, a lot of equipment remained unused. We also note that despite strong policies on what resources should be available, the reality on the ground was that there were often critical shortages. While emergency response mechanisms are not conducive to addressing long-term health system issues, the pandemic increased global recognition of the need to fund care for the critically ill. Limited resources may be best prioritised towards a public health approach with focus on provision of relatively basic, lower cost essential emergency and critical care (EECC) that can potentially save the most lives amongst critically ill patients.

A health systems approach to critical care delivery in low-resource settings: a narrative review.

There is a high burden of critical illness in low-income countries (LICs), adding pressure to already strained health systems. Over the next decade, the need for critical care is expected to grow due to ageing populations with increasing medical complexity; limited access to primary care; climate change; natural disasters; and conflict. In 2019, the 72nd World Health Assembly emphasised that an essential part of universal health coverage is improved access to effective emergency and critical care and to "ensure the timely and effective delivery of life-saving health care services to those in need". In this narrative review, we examine critical care capacity building in LICs from a health systems perspective. We conducted a systematic literature search, using the World Heath Organisation (WHO) health systems framework to structure findings within six core components or "building blocks": (1) service delivery; (2) health workforce; (3) health information systems; (4) access to essential medicines and equipment; (5) financing; and (6) leadership and governance. We provide recommendations using this framework, derived from the literature identified in our review. These recommendations are useful for policy makers, health service researchers and healthcare workers to inform critical care capacity building in low-resource settings.

Cost Effectiveness of Strategies for Caring for Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: The resources for critical care are limited in many settings, exacerbating the significant morbidity and mortality associated with critical illness. Budget constraints can lead to choices between investing in advanced critical care (e.g. mechanical ventilators in intensive care units) or more basic critical care such as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC; e.g. vital signs monitoring, oxygen therapy, and intravenous fluids). METHODS: We investigated the cost effectiveness of providing EECC and advanced critical care in Tanzania in comparison with providing 'no critical care' or 'district hospital-level critical care' using coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a tracer condition. We developed an open-source Markov model ( https://github.com/EECCnetwork/POETIC_CEA ) to estimate costs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted, using a provider perspective, a 28-day time horizon, patient outcomes obtained from an elicitation method involving a seven-member expert group, a normative costing study, and published literature. We performed a univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our results. , RESULTS: EECC is cost effective 94% and 99% of the time when compared with no critical care (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $37 [-$9 to $790] per DALY averted) and district hospital-level critical care (ICER $14 [-$200 to $263] per DALY averted), respectively, relative to the lowest identified estimate of the willingness-to-pay threshold for Tanzania ($101 per DALY averted). Advanced critical care is cost effective 27% and 40% of the time, when compared with the no critical care or district hospital-level critical care scenarios, respectively. CONCLUSION: For settings where there is limited or no critical care delivery, implementation of EECC could be a highly cost-effective investment. It could reduce mortality and morbidity for critically ill COVID-19 patients, and its cost effectiveness falls within the range considered 'highly cost effective'. Further research is needed to explore the potential of EECC to generate even greater benefits and value for money when patients with diagnoses other than COVID-19 are accounted for.

Same label, different patients: Health-workers' understanding of the label 'critical illness'.

Background: During the course of patients' sickness, some become critically ill, and identifying them is the first important step to be able to manage the illness. During the course of care provision, health workers sometimes use the term 'critical illness' as a label when referring to their patient's condition, and the label is then used as a basis for communication and care provision. Their understanding of this label will therefore have a profound impact on the identification and management of patients. This study aimed to determine how Kenyan and Tanzanian health workers understand the label 'critical illness'. Methods: A total of 10 hospitals-five in Kenya and five in Tanzania-were visited. In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 nurses and physicians from different departments in the hospitals who had experience in providing care for sick patients. We conducted a thematic analysis of the translated and transcribed interviews, synthesized findings and developed an overarching set of themes which captured healthcare workers' understandings of the label 'critical illness'. Results: Overall, there does not appear to be a unified understanding of the label 'critical illness' among health workers. Health workers understand the label to refer to patients in four thematic ways: (1) those in a life-threatening state; (2) those with certain diagnoses; (3) those receiving care in certain locations; and (4) those in need of a certain level of care. Conclusion: There is a lack of a unified understanding about the label 'critical illness' among health workers in Tanzania and Kenya. This potentially hampers communication and the selection of patients for urgent life-saving care. A recently proposed definition, "a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and the potential for reversibility", could be useful for improving communication and care.

Essential emergency and critical care as a health system response to critical illness and the COVID19 pandemic: what does it cost?

Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya.The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020.The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively.EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited.

Global critical care: a call to action.

Critical care is underprioritized. A global call to action is needed to increase equitable access to care and the quality of care provided to critically ill patients. Current challenges to effective critical care in resource-constrained settings are many. Estimates of the burden of critical illness are extrapolated from common etiologies, but the true burden remains ill-defined. Measuring the burden of critical illness is epidemiologically challenging but is thought to be increasing. Resources, infrastructure, and training are inadequate. Millions die unnecessarily due to critical illness. Solutions start with the implementation of first-step, patient care fundamentals known as Essential Emergency and Critical Care. Such essential care stands to decrease critical-illness mortality, augment pandemic preparedness, decrease postoperative mortality, and decrease the need for advanced level care. The entire healthcare workforce must be trained in these fundamentals. Additionally, physician and nurse specialists trained in critical care are needed and must be retained as leaders of critical care initiatives, researchers, and teachers. Context-specific research is mandatory to ensure care is appropriate for the patient populations served, not just duplicated from high-resourced settings. Governments must increase healthcare spending and invest in capacity to treat critically ill patients. Advocacy at all levels is needed to achieve universal health coverage for critically ill patients.

Resource use, availability and cost in the provision of critical care in Tanzania: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care is essential in saving lives of critically ill patients, however, provision of critical care across lower resource settings can be costly, fragmented and heterogenous. Despite the urgent need to scale up the provision of critical care, little is known about its availability and cost. Here, we aim to systematically review and identify reported resource use, availability and costs for the provision of critical care and the nature of critical care provision in Tanzania. DESIGN: This is a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and Global Health databases were searched covering the period 2010 to 17 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that reported on forms of critical care offered, critical care services offered and/or costs and resources used in the provision of care in Tanzania published from 2010. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Quality assessment of the articles and data extraction was done by two independent researchers. The Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions was used to assess quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis of extracted data was conducted. Costs were adjusted and reported in 2019 US$ and TZS using the World Bank GDP deflators. RESULTS: A total 31 studies were found to fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Critical care identified in Tanzania was categorised into: intensive care unit (ICU) delivered critical care and non-ICU critical care. The availability of ICU delivered critical care was limited to urban settings whereas non-ICU critical care was found in rural and urban settings. Paediatric critical care equipment was more scarce than equipment for adults. 15 studies reported on the costs of services related to critical care yet no study reported an average or unit cost of critical care. Costs of medication, equipment (eg, oxygen, personal protective equipment), services and human resources were identified as inputs to specific critical care services in Tanzania. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence on the resource use, availability and costs of critical care in Tanzania. There is a strong need for further empirical research on critical care resources availability, utilisation and costs across specialties and hospitals of different level in low/middle-income countries like Tanzania to inform planning, priority setting and budgeting for critical care services. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221923.

Essential Emergency and Critical Care: a consensus among global clinical experts.

BACKGROUND: Globally, critical illness results in millions of deaths every year. Although many of these deaths are potentially preventable, the basic, life-saving care of critically ill patients are often overlooked in health systems. Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) has been devised as the care that should be provided to all critically ill patients in all hospitals in the world. EECC includes the effective care of low cost and low complexity for the identification and treatment of critically ill patients across all medical specialties. This study aimed to specify the content of EECC and additionally, given the surge of critical illness in the ongoing pandemic, the essential diagnosis-specific care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In a Delphi process, consensus (>90% agreement) was sought from a diverse panel of global clinical experts. The panel iteratively rated proposed treatments and actions based on previous guidelines and the WHO/ICRC's Basic Emergency Care. The output from the Delphi was adapted iteratively with specialist reviewers into a coherent and feasible package of clinical processes plus a list of hospital readiness requirements. RESULTS: The 269 experts in the Delphi panel had clinical experience in different acute medical specialties from 59 countries and from all resource settings. The agreed EECC package contains 40 clinical processes and 67 requirements, plus additions specific for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The study has specified the content of care that should be provided to all critically ill patients. Implementing EECC could be an effective strategy for policy makers to reduce preventable deaths worldwide.

Resource availability, utilisation and cost in the provision of critical care in Tanzania: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care is essential in saving lives of those that are critically ill, however, provision of critical care can be costly and heterogeneous across lower-resource settings. This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review of the literature that aims to identify the reported costs and resources available for the provision of critical care and the forms of critical care provision in Tanzania. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health) will be searched to identify articles that report the forms of critical care, resources used in the provision of critical care in Tanzania, their availability and the associated costs. The search strategy will be developed from four key concepts; critical care provision, critical illness, resource use, Tanzania. The articles that fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed for quality using the Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions checklist. The extracted data will be summarised using descriptive statistics including frequencies, mean and median of the quantity and costs of resources used in the components of critical care services, depending on the data availability. This study will be carried out between February and November 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is a review of secondary data and ethical clearance was sought from and granted by the Tanzanian National Institute of Medical Research (reference: NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol. IX/3537) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (ethics ref: 22866). We will publish the review in a peer-reviewed journal as an open access article in addition to presenting the findings at conferences and public scientific gatherings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020221923.

Prevalence and risk factors of acute kidney injury in polytrauma patients at Muhimbili Orthopedic Institute, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Polytrauma can lead to multi-organ dysfunction in addition to the local injuries. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the most common causes and contributors to the high morbidity and mortality. Prevalence of acute kidney injury in trauma patients is as reported to be as high as 40.3%. Early detection and management leads to better outcomes. The prevalence of AKI among polytrauma patients remains unknown in our setting. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study involving all adults with polytrauma who presented at the emergency department at Muhimbili Orthopedic Institute (MOI) was designed. A score of ≥18 on the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) screening tool was used to identify polytrauma patients. The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria was used to identify patient with polytrauma who developed acute kidney injury. Descriptive statistics were then obtained followed by hypothesis testing between variables with the chi squared test. Logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with acute kidney injury. RESULTS: More than half (56.4%) of the patients were between 26 and 40 years and 92.3% of the polytrauma patients were males. Almost 2/5th (38.5%) of the polytrauma patients had acute kidney injury - half of these had stage 1 AKI, 33.3% had stage 2 AKI and the remaining 16.7% had stage 3 AKI. On multivariate logistic regression, it was found that patients who were older than 45 years (OR 8.53, CI 1.65-43.89, p = 0.01) and those patients with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) (OR 21.83, CI 1.66-286.2, p = 0.019) had higher risk of acute kidney injury. CONCLUSION: There is high prevalence of AKI among polytrauma patients. Elderly patients and those with SIRS were seen to have higher likelihood of AKI.

Critical care of tropical disease in low income countries: Report from the Task Force on Tropical Diseases by the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine.

Tropical disease results in a great burden of critical illness. The same life-saving and supportive therapies to maintain vital organ functions that comprise critical care are required by these patients as for all other diseases. In low income countries, the little available data points towards high mortality rates and big challenges in the provision of critical care. Improving critical care in low income countries requires a focus on hospital design, training, triage, monitoring & treatment modifications, the basic principles of critical care, hygiene and the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams. As a large proportion of critical illness from tropical disease is in low income countries, the impact and reductions in mortality rates of improved critical care in such settings could be substantial.