Search

Objective: Critical illness affects health systems globally, but low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden. Due to a paucity of data, the capacity to care for critically ill patients in LMICs is largely unknown. Haiti has the lowest health indices in the Western Hemisphere. In this study, we report results of the first known nationwide survey of critical care capacity in Haiti. Design: Nationwide, cross-sectional survey of Haitian hospitals in 2017–2018. Setting: Haiti. Subjects: All Haitian health facilities with at least six hospital beds. Interventions: Electronic- and paper-based survey. Results: Of 51 health facilities identified, 39 (76.5%) from all ten Haitian administrative departments completed the survey, reporting 124 reported ICU beds nationally. Of facilities without an ICU, 20 (83.3%) care for critically ill patients in the emergency department. There is capacity to ventilate 62 patients nationally within ICUs and six patients outside of the ICU. One-third of facilities with ICUs report formal critical care training for their physicians. Only five facilities met criteria for a Level 1 ICU as defined by the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. Self-identified barriers to providing more effective critical care services include lack of physical space for critically ill patients, lack of equipment, and few formally trained physicians and nurses. Conclusions: Despite a high demand for critical care services in Haiti, current capacity remains insufficient to meet need. A significant amount of critical care in Haiti is provided outside of the ICU, highlighting the important overlap between emergency and critical care medicine in LMICs. Many ICUs in Haiti lack basic components for critical care delivery. Streamlining critical care services through protocol development, education, and training may improve important clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention to research and planning are increasingly being devoted to newcomer health, but the needs of newcomers with disabilities remain largely unknown. This information is difficult to determine since population-level data are rarely available on newcomers or on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), although in Ontario, Canada these databases are accessible. This study compared the prevalence of IDD among first generation adult newcomers to adult non-newcomers in Ontario, and assessed how having IDD affected the health profile and health service use of newcomers. Methods: This population-based retrospective cohort study of adults aged 19–65 in 2010 used linked health and social services administrative data. Prevalence of IDD among newcomers (n = 1,649,633) and non-newcomers (n = 6,880,196) was compared. Among newcomers, those with IDD (n = 2,830) and without IDD (n = 1,646,803) were compared in terms of health conditions, and community and hospital service use. Results: Prevalence of IDD was lower in newcomers than non-newcomers (171.6 versus 898.3 per 100,000 adults, p<0.0001). Among newcomers, those with IDD were more likely than those without IDD to have comorbid physical health disorders, non-psychotic, psychotic and substance use disorders. Newcomers with IDD were also more likely to have psychiatry visits, and frequent emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Conclusion: First generation adult newcomers have lower rates of IDD than non-newcomers. How much of this difference is attributable to admission policies that exclude people expected to be high health service users versus how much is attributable to our methodological approach is unknown. Finding more medical and psychiatric comorbidity, and more health service use among newcomers with IDD compared to newcomers without IDD is consistent with patterns observed in adults with IDD more generally. To inform polices that support newcomers with IDD future research should investigate reasons for the prevalence finding, barriers and facilitators to timely health care access, and pathways to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) programs have expanded rapidly, but evaluating their impact on hospital care is challenging. Objectives: To demonstrate how careful study design can reveal POLST’s impact at hospital admission and why analyses of state registry data are unlikely to capture POLST’s effects. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting and participants: Adult in-patients with Do Not Intubate and/or Do Not Resuscitate (DNR/I) orders in the electronic medical record at the time of discharge from Johns Hopkins Hospital over 18 months. For patients with unplanned readmissions within 30 days, records were reviewed to determine if a Maryland Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form was presented and for the time from readmission to a DNR/I order in the EMR. Analyses were stratified by whether patients could communicate or were accompanied by a proxy at readmission. Results: Among 1,507 patients with DNR/I orders at discharge, 124 (8%) had unplanned readmissions, 112 (90%) could communicate or were accompanied by a proxy at readmission, and 12 (10%) could not communicate and were unaccompanied. For patients who were unaccompanied and could not communicate, MOLST significantly decreased the median time from readmission to DNR/I order (1.2 vs 27.1 hours, P = .001), but this association was greatly attenuated among patients who could communicate or were accompanied by a proxy (16.4 vs 25.4 hours P = .10). Conclusion: Among patients who wanted to avoid intubation and/or CPR, MOLST forms were protective when the patient was unaccompanied by a healthcare proxy at admission and could not communicate. Fewer than 10% of patients met these criteria during unplanned readmissions, and state registry data does not allow this sub-population to be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]