Search

The COVID-19 pandemic began as a cluster of reported cases of acute respiratory illness in China on 31 December 2019 and went on to spread with exponential growth across the globe. By the time it was characterized as a global pandemic on 11 March 2020, 17 of 22 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) had reports of infected persons. EMR countries are particularly susceptible to such outbreaks due to the presence of globally interconnected markets; complex emergencies in more than half of the countries; religious mass gatherings that draw tens of millions of pilgrims annually; and variation in emergency care systems capacity and health systems performance within and between countries.

BackgroundGlobally, 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Burn therapies should focus on achieving outcomes that are most important to patients. The authors wanted to discover which outcomes newly burned patients would anticipate as most important to them and explored the association between demographic/burn characteristics and patient preferences. The authors surveyed 753 of 776 patients seen by our burn service from 2008 to 2013 during the initial encounter. Patients were asked to rate the anticipated importance of several burn outcomes including cosmetic appearance, resumption of normal function, and the lack of pain/itching on a four-item Likert scale (not important, somewhat important, important, and extremely important). The association between demographic and burn characteristics with patient's views on the importance of various outcomes was explored with χ and nonparametric tests. Patient mean (SD) age was 30 (22) years, 58% were males, 69% were white. Overall, function was extremely important to 96% of patients, lack of pain/itching was extremely important to 85% of patients, and cosmesis was extremely important to 59% of patients. Cosmesis was extremely important to more females than males (69 vs 52%; P < .001) and the mean age of patients in whom cosmesis was extremely important was lower than those in whom it was not (25 vs 40; P < .001). Cosmesis was more commonly extremely important in patients with head/neck than extremity burns (67 vs 57%; P < .001). Levels of importance for function and lack of pain/itching did not differ by gender, age, TBSA, or burn location. Thus, return to normal function and lack of pain and itching appear to be more commonly very important to burn patient than the cosmetic appearance of their burns. Cosmesis was of greater importance to younger patients, female patients, and those with head/neck burns.

The global health development community is increasingly examining the phenomenon of short-term experiences in global health (STEGH), with an aim to mitigate the negative impacts of such activities on host communities. Appropriate supervision is one strategy, but various barriers (e.g., institutional requirements) limit the availability of qualified supervisors. Remote supervision represents one potential model to provide supervision that may mitigate the negative impacts of STEGH. This paper reports observed outcomes from a description of a pilot remote supervision program employed in a global health program for Canadian undergraduate students. Benefits for learners included greater confidence and independence, greater perceived effectiveness in conducting their project abroad, and reassurance of remote support from their supervisor, supplemented with day-to-day guidance from the local partner. Host communities reported greater trust in the bidirectional nature of partnership with the visiting institution, empowerment through directing students’ work, and improved alignment of projects with community needs. Finally, faculty noted that remote supervision provided greater flexibility and freedom when compared to traditional in-person supervision, allowing them to maintain professional duties at home. Collectively, this pilot suggests that remote supervision demonstrates a potential solution to mitigating the harms of STEGHs undertaken by learners by providing adequate and appropriate remote supervision.

Clinical distinction between superficial and deep burns is problematic. The authors determined whether an infrared thermal imaging (IRTI) camera could predict burn depth. Burn depth was assessed by an experienced surgeon, and the burns were imaged with a portable, lightweight IRTI camera that measures heat emission from the skin using long infrared wavelengths (7.5-13 μm). Burns were considered "deep" if they were surgically excised and confirmed to be of full thickness on microscopic evaluation or if they did not heal spontaneously within 21 days of injury. All other burns were considered "nondeep." There were 39 burns that had both days 1 and 2 IRTI measurements and available outcome. Of these, 16 were "deep" burns and 23 were "nondeep." The mean temperatures of "nondeep" burns between days 1 and 2 increased from 30.6 ± 2.7 to 32.1 ± 3.0°C (difference of 1.5 ± 2.3°C). The mean temperatures of "deep" burns decreased from 32.3 ± 2.0 to 30.8 ± 1.3°C (difference of -1.5 ± 2.0°C) between days 1 and 2. Any decrease in temperatures between days 1 and 2 was predictive of a deep wound, and any increase between days 1 and 2 was predictive of a nondeep burn. Using the ultimate burn depth as the criterion standard, the overall accuracy of IRTI was considerably higher than that of clinical assessment; 87.2% (95% CI: 71.8-95.2) vs 54.1% (95% CI: 37.1-70.2). Any decrease in temperatures between days 1 and 2 was predictive of a deep wound. Our results suggest that thermography using IRTI is more accurate than clinical examination in predicting burn depth and could potentially reduce unnecessary surgery as well as reduce delays to surgery when necessary.