Bhalla Kavi, Sriram Veena, Arora Radhika, Ahuja Richa, Varghese Mathew, Agrawal Girish, Tiwari Geetam, Mohan Dinesh
Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago Biological Sciences Division, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Nov 19;4(6):e001963. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001963. eCollection 2019.
Ambulance-based emergency medical systems (EMS) are expensive and remain rare in low- and middle-income countries, where trauma victims are usually transported to hospital by passing vehicles. Recent developments in transportation network technologies could potentially disrupt this status quo by allowing coordinated emergency response from layperson networks. We sought to understand the barriers to bystander assistance for trauma victims in Delhi, India, and implications for a layperson-EMS.
We used qualitative methods to analyse data from 50 interviews with frontline stakeholders (including taxi drivers, medical professionals, legal experts and police), one stakeholder consultation and a review of documents.
Respondents noted that most trauma victims in Delhi are rapidly brought to hospital by bystanders, taxis and police. While ambulances are common, they are primarily used for interfacility transfers. Entrenched medico-legal practices result in substantial police presence at the hospital, which is a major source of harassment of good Samaritans and interferes with patient care. Trauma victims are often turned away by for-profit hospitals due to their inability to pay, leading to delays in treatment. Recent policy efforts to circumscribe the role of police and force for-profit hospitals to stabilise patients appear to have been unsuccessful.
Existing healthcare and medico-legal practices in India create large systemic impediments to improving trauma outcomes. Until India's ongoing health and transport sector reforms succeed in ensuring that for-profit hospitals reliably provide care, good Samaritans and layperson-EMS providers should take victims with uncertain financial means to public facilities. To avoid difficulties with police, providers of a layperson-EMS would likely need official police sanction and carry visible symbols of their authority to provide emergency transport. Delhi already has several key components of an EMS (including dispatcher coordinated police response, large ambulance fleet) that could be integrated and expanded into a complete system of emergency care.
基于救护车的紧急医疗系统(EMS)成本高昂,在低收入和中等收入国家仍很罕见,在这些国家,创伤受害者通常由过往车辆送往医院。交通网络技术的最新发展可能会打破这种现状,通过允许非专业人员网络进行协调应急响应。我们试图了解印度德里创伤受害者旁观者救助的障碍以及对非专业人员紧急医疗服务的影响。
我们采用定性方法分析了对50名一线利益相关者(包括出租车司机、医疗专业人员、法律专家和警察)的访谈数据、一次利益相关者咨询以及文件审查。
受访者指出,德里的大多数创伤受害者被旁观者、出租车和警察迅速送往医院。虽然救护车很常见,但它们主要用于机构间转运。根深蒂固的医疗法律惯例导致医院有大量警察在场,这是对好心人的主要骚扰来源,并干扰了患者护理。创伤受害者往往因无力支付而被营利性医院拒之门外,导致治疗延误。最近限制警察作用并迫使营利性医院稳定患者病情的政策努力似乎没有成功。
印度现有的医疗保健和医疗法律惯例对改善创伤治疗结果造成了巨大的系统性障碍。在印度正在进行的卫生和交通部门改革成功确保营利性医院可靠地提供护理之前,好心人和非专业人员紧急医疗服务提供者应将经济状况不确定的受害者送往公共设施。为避免与警方产生麻烦,非专业人员紧急医疗服务提供者可能需要警方的官方批准,并携带其提供紧急运输的明显权力标志。德里已经具备紧急医疗服务的几个关键组成部分(包括调度员协调的警方响应、大型救护车车队),可以整合并扩展为一个完整的紧急护理系统。