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.

Background Surgery and anesthesia are indivisible parts of health care, but safe and timely care requires more than operating rooms and skilled providers. One vital component of a functional surgical system is reliable blood transfusion. While almost half of all blood is donated in high-income countries (HICs), over eighty percent of the global population lives outside of these countries. High-income countries have on average 30 donations per 1000 people, and the average age of transfusion recipient is over 65. Most low-income countries (LICs) have fewer than five donations per 1000 people, where maternal hemorrhage and childhood anemia are the most common indications for transfusion. In LICs, greater than 50% of blood is administered to children under 5 years of age. This study aims to snapshot, by survey, available resources for transfusion and then discusses the infrastructure and cultural barriers to optimal transfusion practice. Methods In January 2019, a 10-question survey was sent electronically to physician anesthesiologists working in low-and middle-income countries to examine resources and practice patterns for blood transfusion. Subsequent discussions illustrate obstacles contributing to low availability of blood products and illuminate infrastructure and cultural barriers preventing optimal transfusion practices. Survey Results Acquiring whole blood takes hours. Clinicians wait days to receive packed red blood cells or platelets. Fresh frozen plasma is available but untimely. For many, protocols for massive transfusion are rare, and for transfusion, ratios are nonexistent. Complete blood counts take hours, and coagulation profiles are severely delayed. Discussion of Infrastructure and Cultural Barriers With few voluntary, unpaid, donors and inconsistent supply of testing kits, donated blood is unsafe. Donors are seasonal for farming communities, endemic malaria areas, and student donors recruited through schools. Cultural beliefs fuel distrust. Transfusion specialists, concentrated in urban areas, see rural patients presenting late. Inadequate triaging and supervision jeopardize patients to shock. Inadequate blood storage leads to waste. Modeling systems from HICs fail to overcome hurdles faced by clinicians working with distinctive belief systems and unique patient populations.

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-023-07136-2.

No abstract

No abstract