Poor access to acute care resources to treat major trauma in low- and middle-income settings: A self-reported survey of acute care providers

Abstract

Introduction Injury and violence are neglected global health concerns, despite being largely predictable and therefor preventable. We conducted a small study to indirectly describe and compare the perception of availability of resources to manage major trauma in high-income, and low- and middle-income countries using evidence-based guidance (as per the 2016 National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines), as self-reported by delegates attending the 2016 International Conference on Emergency Medicine held in South Africa. Methods A survey was distributed to delegates at the International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2016. The survey instrument captured responses from participants working in both pre- and in-hospital settings. Responses were grouped according to income group (either high-income, or low- and middle-income) based on the respondent’s nationality (using the World Bank definition for income group). A Fisher’s Exact test was conducted to compare responses between different income groups. Results The survey was distributed to 980 delegates, and 392 (40%) responded. A total of 206 (53%) respondents were from high-income countries and 186 (47%) were from low- to middle-income countries. Respondents described significantly less access to resources and services for low- and middle-income countries to adequately care for major trauma patients both pre- and in-hospital when compared to high-income countries. Shortages ranged from consumables to analgesia, imaging to specialist services, and pre-hospital to in-hospital care. Conclusion Major trauma care requires a chain of successful, evidence-based events for outcomes to benefit. This small study suggests that many of the links of this chain are either missing or broken within low- and middle-income countries. These settings simply do not benefit from the currently available evidence-base in major trauma care. It is important that this evidence-base also be evaluated within low- and middle-income countries. The capacity of low- and middle-income country emergency care systems also needs better describing.

An analysis of emergency care delays experienced by traumatic brain injury patients presenting to a regional referral hospital in a low-income country

“…Compared to personnel associated resources, our health system was more limited by non-personnel related resources as seen in other LMIC hospitals and which has been associated with poor outcomes [ 53 , 54 ]. In our sample, 92.0% of moderate and 95.0% of severe GCS patients in our sample needed but did not receive a brain CT scan ( Fig 2 ).…”

Off-label use of orthopedical trauma implants in a low-income country

“…Surgery in low-income countries (LIC) has evolved differently than in high-income countries (HIC) and has another standard of care [ 1 ]. Limited resources combined with high patient inflow result in a mismatch of the hospitals’ capacity and its workload [ 2 , 3 ]. Implants are often not available or unaffordable, medical personnel training varies widely, and severe injuries are often [ 4 ].…”

No implant, no solution, lost cases to surgery: orthopedic trauma triage for surgery in an NGO hospital in Sierra Leone

“…While some hospitals lack power drills and image intensifiers in the operation theater (OT), others provide implants necessary for most osteosyntheses. The capacity of operating fractures depends significantly on the availability of instruments and orthopedic implants [6].…”