Pediatric Chest Compression Improvement Via Augmented Reality Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Feedback in Community General Emergency Departments: A Mixed-Methods Simulation-Based Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Yearly, more than 20,000 children experience a cardiac arrest. High-quality pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is generally challenging for community hospital teams, where pediatric cardiac arrest is infrequent. Current feedback systems are insufficient. Therefore, we developed an augmented reality (AR) CPR feedback system for use in many settings. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate whether AR-CPR improves chest compression (CC) performance in non-pediatric-specialized community emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: We performed an unblinded, randomized, crossover simulation-based study. A convenience sample of community ED nonpediatric nurses and technicians were included. Each participant performed three 2-min cycles of CC during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Participants were randomized to use AR-CPR in one of three CC cycles. Afterward, participants participated in a qualitative interview to inquire about their experience with AR-CPR. RESULTS: Of 36 participants, 18 were randomized to AR-CPR in cycle 2 (group A) and 18 were randomized to AR-CPR in cycle 3 (group B). When using AR-CPR, 87-90% (SD 12-13%) of all CCs were in goal range, analyzed as 1-min intervals, compared with 18-21% (SD 30-33%) without feedback (p < 0.001). Analysis of qualitative themes revealed that AR-CPR may be usable without a device orientation, be effective at cognitive offloading, and reduce anxiety around and enhance confidence in the CC delivered. CONCLUSIONS: The novel CPR feedback system, AR-CPR, significantly changed the CC performance in community hospital non-pediatric-specialized general EDs from 18-21% to 87-90% of CC epochs at goal. This study offers preliminary evidence suggesting AR-CPR improves CC quality in community hospital settings.

The economic value of personal protective equipment for healthcare workers.

In this paper, we examine the cost effectiveness of investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for protecting health care workers (HCWs) against two infectious diseases: Ebola virus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This builds on similar work published for COVID-19 in 2020. We developed two separate decision-analytic models using a payer perspective to compare the costs and effects of multiple PPE use scenarios for protection of HCW against Ebola and MRSA. Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analyses were used to consider the uncertainty surrounding all key parameters for both diseases. We estimate the cost to provide adequate PPE for a HCW encounter with an Ebola patient is $13.04, which is associated with a 97% risk reduction in infections. The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $3.98 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Because of lowered infection and disability rates, this investment is estimated to save $132.27 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 1,014%. For MRSA, the cost of adequate PPE for one HCW encounter is $0.88, which is associated with a 53% risk reduction in infections. The mean ICER is $362.14 per DALY averted. This investment is estimated to save $20.18 in averted health systems costs, a financial ROI of 2,294%. In terms of total health savings per death averted, investing in adequate PPE is the dominant strategy for Ebola and MRSA, suggesting that it is both more costly and less clinically optimal to not fully invest in PPE for these diseases. There are many compelling reasons to invest in PPE to protect HCWs. This analysis examines the economic case, building on previous evidence that protecting HCWs with PPE is cost-effective for COVD-19. Ebola and MRSA scenarios were selected to allow assessment of both endemic and epidemic infectious diseases. While PPE is cost-effective for both conditions, compared to our analysis for COVID-19, PPE is relatively more cost-effective for Ebola and relatively less so for MRSA. Further research is needed to assess shortfalls in the PPE supply chain identified during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure an efficient and resilient supply in the face of future pandemics.

Association between universal health coverage and the disease burden of acute illness and injury at the global level.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the relationship between universal health coverage (UHC) and the burden of emergency diseases at a global level. METHODS: Data on Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) from emergency conditions were extracted from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) database for the years 2015 and 2019. Data on UHC, measured using two variables 1) coverage of essential health services and 2) proportion of the population spending more than 10% of household income on out-of-pocket health care expenditure, were extracted from the World Bank Database for years preceding our outcome of interest. A linear regression was used to analyze the association between UHC variables and DALYs for emergency diseases, controlling for other variables. RESULTS: A total of 132 countries were included. The median national coverage of essential health services index was 67.5/100, while the median national prevalence of catastrophic spending in the sample was 6.74% of households. There was a strong significant relationship between health service coverage and the burden of emergency diseases, with an 11.5-point reduction in DALYs of emergency medical diseases (95% CI -9.5, -14.8) for every point increase in the coverage of essential health services index. There was no statistically significant relationship between catastrophic expenditures and the burden of emergency diseases, which may be indicative of inelastic demand in seeking services for health emergencies. CONCLUSION: Increasing the coverage of essential health services, as measured by the essential health services index, is strongly correlated with a reduction in the burden of emergency conditions. In addition, data affirms that financial protection remains inadequate in many parts of the globe, with large numbers of households experiencing significant economic duress related to seeking healthcare. This evidence supports a strategy of strengthening UHC as a means of combating death and disability from health emergencies, as well as extending protection against impoverishment related to healthcare expenses.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the multi-strategy WHO emergency care toolkit in regional referral hospitals in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Low- and middle-income countries bear a disproportionate amount of the global burden of disease from emergency conditions. To improve the provision of emergency care in low-resource settings, a multifaceted World Health Organization (WHO) intervention introduced a toolkit including Basic Emergency Care training, resuscitation area guidelines, a trauma registry, a trauma checklist, and triage tool in two public hospital sites in Uganda. While introduction of the toolkit revealed a large reduction in the case fatality rate of patients, little is known about the cost-effectiveness and affordability. We analysed the cost-effectiveness of the toolkit and conducted a budget analysis to estimate the impact of scale up to all regional referral hospitals for the national level. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed to assess pre- and post-intervention groups from a societal perspective. Data regarding mortality were drawn from WHO quality improvement reports captured at two public hospitals in Uganda from 2016-2017. Cost data were drawn from project budgets and included direct costs of the implementation of the intervention, and direct costs of clinical care for patients with disability. Development costs were not included. Parameter uncertainty was assessed using both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Our model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing the WHO emergency care toolkit measuring all costs and outcomes as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) over a lifetime, discounting both costs and outcomes at 3.5%. RESULTS: Implementation of the WHO Toolkit averted 1,498 DALYs when compared to standard care over a one-year time horizon. The initial investment of $5,873 saved 34 lives (637 life years) and avoided $1,670,689 in downstream societal costs, resulted in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, dominating the comparator scenario of no intervention. This would increase to saving 884 lives and 25,236 DALYs annually with national scale up. If scaled to a national level the total intervention cost over period of five years would be $4,562,588 or a 0.09% increase of the total health budget for Uganda. The economic gains are estimated to be $29,880,949 USD, the equivalent of a 655% return on investment. The model was most sensitive to average annual cash income, discount rate and frequency survivor is a road-traffic incident survivor, but was robust for all other parameters. CONCLUSION: Improving emergency care using the WHO Toolkit produces a cost-savings in a low-resource setting such as Uganda. In alignment with the growing body of literature highlighting the value of systematizing emergency care, our findings suggest the toolkit could be an efficient approach to strengthening emergency care systems.

Examining the cost-effectiveness of personal protective equipment for formal healthcare workers in Kenya during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are at a higher risk of COVID-19 infection during care encounters compared to the general population. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) have been shown to protect COVID-19 among healthcare workers, however, Kenya has faced PPE shortages that can adequately protect all healthcare workers. We, therefore, examined the health and economic consequences of investing in PPE for healthcare workers in Kenya. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model following the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guidelines. We examined two outcomes: 1) the incremental cost per healthcare worker death averted, and 2) the incremental cost per healthcare worker COVID-19 case averted. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis using 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: Kenya would need to invest $3.12 million (95% CI: 2.65-3.59) to adequately protect healthcare workers against COVID-19. This investment would avert 416 (IQR: 330-517) and 30,041 (IQR: 7243 - 102,480) healthcare worker deaths and COVID-19 cases respectively. Additionally, such an investment would result in a healthcare system ROI of $170.64 million (IQR: 138-209) - equivalent to an 11.04 times return. CONCLUSION: Despite other nationwide COVID-19 prevention measures such as social distancing, over 70% of healthcare workers will still be infected if the availability of PPE remains scarce. As part of the COVID-19 response strategy, the government should consider adequate investment in PPE for all healthcare workers in the country as it provides a large return on investment and it is value for money.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of ultrasound in emergency care settings.

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound (US) in emergency departments (ED) has become widespread. This includes both traditional US scans performed by radiology departments as well as point-of-care US (POCUS) performed by bedside clinicians. There has been significant interest in better understanding the appropriate use of imaging and where opportunities to enhance cost-effectiveness may exist. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify published evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of US in the ED and to grade the quality of that evidence. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were: (1) economic evaluations, (2) studied the clinical use of ultrasound, and (3) took place in an emergency care setting. Included studies were critically appraised using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. RESULTS: We identified 631 potentially relevant articles. Of these, 35 studies met all inclusion criteria and were eligible for data abstraction. In general, studies were supportive of the use of US. In particular, 11 studies formed a strong consensus that US enhanced cost-effectiveness in the investigation of pediatric appendicitis and 6 studies supported enhancements in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Across the studies, weaknesses in methodology and reporting were common, such as lack of sensitivity analyses and inconsistent reporting of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. CONCLUSIONS: The body of existing evidence, though limited, generally demonstrates that the inclusion of US in emergency care settings allows for more cost-effective care. The most definitive evidence for improvements in cost-effectiveness surround the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis, followed by the evaluation of abdominal trauma. POCUS outside of trauma has had mixed results.

The costs of delivering emergency care at regional referral hospitals in Uganda: a micro-costing study.

BACKGROUND: Uganda experiences a high morbidity and mortality burden due to conditions amenable to emergency care, yet few public hospitals have dedicated emergency units. As a result, little is known about the costs and effects of delivering lifesaving emergency care, hindering health systems planning, budgeting and prioritization exercises. To determine healthcare costs of emergency care services at public facilities in Uganda, we estimate the median cost of care for five sentinel conditions and 13 interventions. METHODS: A direct, activity-based costing was carried out at five regional referral hospitals over a four-week period from September to October 2019. Hospital costs were determined using bottom-up micro-costing methodology from a provider perspective. Resource use was enumerated via observation and unit costs were derived from National Medical Stores lists. Cost per condition per patient and measures of central tendency for conditions and interventions were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis H-tests and Nemyeni post-hoc tests were conducted to determine significant differences between costs of the conditions. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-two patient cases were captured with an overall median cost of care of $15.53 USD ($14.44 to $19.22). The median cost per condition was highest for post-partum haemorrhage at $17.25 ($15.02 to $21.36), followed by road traffic injuries at $15.96 ($14.51 to $20.30), asthma at $15.90 ($14.76 to $19.30), pneumonia at $15.55 ($14.65 to $20.12), and paediatric diarrhoea at $14.61 ($13.74 to $15.57). The median cost per intervention was highest for fracture reduction and splinting at $27.77 ($22.00 to $31.50). Cost values differ between sentinel conditions (p < 0.05) with treatments for paediatric diarrhoea having the lowest median cost of all conditions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to describe the direct costs of emergency care in hospitals in Uganda by observing the delivery of clinical services, using robust activity-based costing and time motion methodology. We find that emergency care interventions for key drivers of morbidity and mortality can be delivered at considerably lower costs than many priority health interventions. Further research assessing acute care delivery would be useful in planning wider health care delivery systems development.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of emergency interventions for stroke in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with an increasing incidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The successful treatment of acute stroke requires an organized, efficient and well-resourced emergency care system. However, debate exists surrounding the prioritization of stroke treatment programs given the high costs of treatment and the increased incidence of hemorrhagic stroke in LMICs. Economic data is helpful to guide evidence-based priority setting in health systems development, particularly in low-resource settings where scarcity requires careful stewardship of resources. This systematic review surveys the existing evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of interventions to address acute stroke in LMIC settings. METHODS: The authors conducted a PRISMA style systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to address acute stroke in LMICs. Five databases were systematically searched for articles, which were then reviewed for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 153 unique articles identified, 11 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies demonstrate the heavy economic burden on patients and households due to stroke. Two studies estimate that preventive measures are more cost-effective than acute treatments. Four studies directly examine the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis and thrombectomy in three middle-income countries (Iran, China, and Brazil) with results ranging from roughly $2578 to $34,052 (2019 USD) per quality adjusted life-year saved. These results are similar to the cost-effectiveness ratios estimated in high-income settings. Finally, one study examined a care bundle that included acute treatment elements. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reinforce the need for additional research support informed decision-making. The available evidence suggests that preventive measures should be prioritized over emergency treatment for acute stroke, particularly in settings of resource scarcity. Cost-effectiveness ratios do not compare favorably to estimates for other emergency care interventions in LMICs, such as basic emergency care training, implementation of triage systems, and basic trauma care. Cost-effectiveness is also likely to vary depending on local epidemiology. Overall, decision-makers should balance the economic evidence alongside social, political and cultural priorities when making resource allocation choices.

Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of protecting health workers in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we predict the health and economic consequences of immediate investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: To account for health consequences, we estimated mortality for HCWs and present a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model with Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Data sources included inputs from the World Health Organization Essential Supplies Forecasting Tool and the Imperial College of London epidemiologic model. RESULTS: An investment of $9.6 billion USD would adequately protect HCWs in all LMICs. This intervention would save 2,299,543 lives across LMICs, costing $59 USD per HCW case averted and $4,309 USD per HCW life saved. The societal ROI would be $755.3 billion USD, the equivalent of a 7,932% return. Regional and national estimates are also presented. DISCUSSION: In scenarios where PPE remains scarce, 70-100% of HCWs will get infected, irrespective of nationwide social distancing policies. Maintaining HCW infection rates below 10% and mortality below 1% requires inclusion of a PPE scale-up strategy as part of the pandemic response. In conclusion, wide-scale procurement and distribution of PPE for LMICs is an essential strategy to prevent widespread HCW morbidity and mortality. It is cost-effective and yields a large downstream return on investment.

Cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses of emergency care interventions in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed®, Scopus, EMBASE®, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies published before May 2019. Inclusion criteria were: (i) an original cost-effectiveness analysis of emergency care intervention or intervention package, and (ii) the analysis occurred in a low- and middle-income setting. To identify additional primary studies, we hand searched the reference lists of included studies. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards guideline to appraise the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Of the 1674 articles we identified, 35 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified an additional four studies from the reference lists. We excluded many studies for being deemed costing assessments without an effectiveness analysis. Most included studies were single-intervention analyses. Emergency care interventions evaluated by included studies covered prehospital services, provider training, treatment interventions, emergency diagnostic tools and facilities and packages of care. The reporting quality of the studies varied. CONCLUSION: We found large gaps in the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions in low- and middle-income settings. Given the breadth of interventions currently in practice, many interventions remain unassessed, suggesting the need for future research to aid resource allocation decisions. In particular, packages of multiple interventions and system-level changes represent a priority area for future research.

Advancing research on emergency care systems in low-income and middle-income countries: ensuring high-quality care delivery systems.

Emergency care systems (ECS) address a wide range of acute conditions, including emergent conditions from communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, pregnancy and injury. Together, ECS represent an area of great potential for reducing morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). It is estimated that up to 54% of annual deaths in LMICs could be addressed by improved prehospital and facility-based emergency care. Research is needed to identify strategies for enhancing ECS to optimise prevention and treatment of conditions presenting in this context, yet significant gaps persist in defining critical research questions for ECS studies in LMICs. The Collaborative on Enhancing Emergency Care Research in LMICs seeks to promote research that improves immediate and long-term outcomes for clients and populations with emergent conditions. The objective of this paper is to describe systems approaches and research strategies for ECS in LMICs, elucidate priority research questions and methodology, and present a selection of studies addressing the operational, implementation, policy and health systems domains of health systems research as an approach to studying ECS. Finally, we briefly discuss limitations and the next steps in developing ECS-oriented interventions and research.

Advancing research on the economic value of emergency care.

Emergency care and the emergency care system encompass an array of time-sensitive interventions to address acute illness and injury. Research has begun to clarify the enormous economic burden of acute disease, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, but little is known about the cost-effectiveness of emergency care interventions and the performance of health financing mechanisms to protect populations against catastrophic health expenditures. We summarise existing knowledge on the economic value of emergency care in low resource settings, including interventions indicated to be highly cost-effective, linkages between emergency care financing and universal health coverage, and priority areas for future research.

Aligning emergency care with global health priorities.

BACKGROUND: The availability of resources, knowledge, and will to expand access to high-quality emergency care in low- and middle-income countries has made strong progress in recent years. While the possibility for intervention has improved, the need has only grown more pressing. What remains is for us, the people who practice and support emergency care delivery on a regular basis, to pull these elements together and present a cohesive call to action for leaders to prioritize the development of emergency care. This advocacy should coalesce around two high-level commitments: the Sustainable Development Goals and Universal Health Coverage. Emergency care has not been a traditional tool that policy makers rely on to improve health and development; however, we can show that it is actually critical to achieving these goals. Making this case has become possible with the availability of evidence that shows emergency health conditions contribute to a substantial portion of the disease burden, emergency care interventions are high-impact, and the interventions can be implemented without a substantial increase in resources. MAIN BODY: There is a growing understanding of the burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries and how 54% or 24.3 million deaths are amenable to emergency care systems. There are a group of diseases that are time sensitive and show improved outcomes with good emergency care systems. Alongside an improving scientific underpinning to emergency care, there is growing policy recognition. While there is no direct mention of emergency care in the Sustainable Development Goals document, many goals, such as reductions in infant and maternal deaths, deaths due to non-communicable diseases, road traffic injuries and violence, improving resilience of climate change, universal coverage, and safe/sustainable urban environments are not achievable without developing, sustaining, and improving the quality of emergency care systems. CONCLUSION: To take emergency care to the next level, we must capitalize on the growing understanding of the disease burden of emergent conditions, along with the increasing evidence of the high-impact and low-cost of emergency care interventions. Linking these messages to widely accepted policy priorities like the SDGs and UHC will increase attention towards the development of emergency care systems, which potentially could save lives.

Using the Electronic Medical Record to Reduce Unnecessary Ordering of Coagulation Studies for Patients with Chest Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to reduce ordering of coagulation studies in the emergency department (ED) that have no added value for patients presenting with chest pain. We hypothesized this could be achieved via implementation of a stopgap measure in the electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: We used a pre and post quasi-experimental study design to evaluate the impact of an EMR-based intervention on coagulation study ordering for patients with chest pain. A simple interactive prompt was incorporated into the EMR of our ED that required clinicians to indicate whether patients were on anticoagulation therapy prior to completion of orders for coagulation studies. Coagulation order frequency was measured via detailed review of randomly sampled encounters during two-month periods before and after intervention. We classified existing orders as clinically indicated or non-value added. Order frequencies were calculated as percentages, and we assessed differences between groups by chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, 73.8% (76/103) of patients with chest pain had coagulation studies ordered, of which 67.1% (51/76) were non-value added. Post-intervention, 38.5% (40/104) of patients with chest pain had coagulation studies ordered, of which 60% (24/40) were non-value added. There was an absolute reduction of 35.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.7%, 48.0%) in the total ordering of coagulation studies and 26.4% (95% CI: 13.8%, 39.0%) in non-value added order placement. CONCLUSION: Simple EMR-based interactive prompts can serve as effective deterrents to indiscriminate ordering of diagnostic studies.

The Price of a Helping Hand: Modeling the Outcomes and Costs of Bystander CPR.

OBJECTIVE: Early, high-quality, minimally interrupted bystander cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (BCPR) is essential for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. However, rates of bystander intervention remain low in many geographic areas. Community CPR programs have been initiated to combat these low numbers by teaching compression-only CPR to laypersons. This study examined bystander CPR and the cost-effectiveness of a countywide CPR program to improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. METHODS: A 2-year retrospective review of emergency medical services (EMS) run reports for adult nontraumatic cardiac arrests was performed using existing prehospital EMS quality assurance data. The incidence and success of bystander CPR to produce prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and favorable neurologic outcomes at hospital discharge were analyzed. The outcomes were paired with cost data for the jurisdiction's community CPR program to develop a cost-effectiveness model. RESULTS: During the 23-month study period, a total of 371 nontraumatic adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred, with a 33.4% incidence of bystander CPR. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for the community CPR program demonstrated a total cost of $22,539 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). A significantly increased proportion of those who received BCPR also had an automated external defibrillator (AED) applied. There was no correlation between witnessed arrest and performance of BCPR. A significantly increased proportion of those who received BCPR were found to be in a shockable rhythm when the initial ECG was performed. In the home setting, the chances of receiving BCPR were significantly smaller, whereas in the public setting a nearly equal number of people received and did not receive BCPR. Witnessed arrest, AED application, public location, and shockable rhythm on initial ECG were all significantly associated with positive ROSC and neurologic outcomes. A home arrest was significantly associated with worse neurologic outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that a community CPR outreach program is a cost-effective means for saving lives when compared to other healthcare-related interventions. Bystander CPR showed a clear trend toward improving the neurologic outcome of survivors. The findings of this study indicate a need for additional research into the economic effects of bystander CPR.

The impact of electronic health record implementation on emergency physician efficiency and patient throughput.

BACKGROUND: In emergency departments (EDs), the implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) has the potential to impact the rapid assessment and management of life threatening conditions. In order to quantify this impact, we studied the implementation of EHRs in the EDs of a two hospital system. METHODS: using a prospective pre-post study design, patient processing metrics were collected for each ED physician at two hospitals for 7 months prior and 10 months post-EHR implementation. Metrics included median patient workup time, median length of stay, and the composite outcome indicator "processing time." RESULTS: median processing time increased immediately post-implementation and then returned to, and surpassed, the baseline level over 10 months. Overall, we see significant decreases in processing time as the number of patients treated increases. CONCLUSIONS: implementation of new EHRs into the ED setting can be expected to cause an initial decrease in efficiency. With adaptation, efficiency should return to baseline levels and may eventually surpass them. IMPLICATIONS: while EDs can expect long term gains from the implementation of EHRs, they should be prepared for initial decreases in efficiency and take preparatory measures to avert adverse effects on the quality of patient care.

Emergency care and health systems: consensus-based recommendations and future research priorities.

The theme of the 14th annual Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference was "Global Health and Emergency Care: A Research Agenda." The goal of the conference was to create a robust and measurable research agenda for evaluating emergency health care delivery systems. The concept of health systems includes the organizations, institutions, and resources whose primary purpose is to promote, restore, and/or maintain health. This article further conceptualizes the vertical and horizontal delivery of acute and emergency care in low-resource settings by defining specific terminology for emergency care platforms and discussing how they fit into broader health systems models. This was accomplished through discussion surrounding four principal questions touching upon the interplay between health systems and acute and emergency care. This research agenda is intended to assist countries that are in the early stages of integrating emergency services into their health systems and are looking for guidance to maximize their development and health systems planning efforts.