School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
College Undergraduate Degree Programs & Studies, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA.
BMJ Open. 2023 Apr 17;13(4):e067884. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067884.
Over 50% of annual deaths in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) could be averted through access to high-quality emergency care.
We performed a scoping review of the literature that described at least one measure of emergency care access in LMICs in order to understand relevant barriers to emergency care systems.
English language studies published between 1 January 1990 and 30 December 2020, with one or more discrete measure(s) of access to emergency health services in LMICs described.
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the grey literature.
A structured data extraction tool was used to identify and classify the number of 'unique' measures, and the number of times each unique measure was studied in the literature ('total' measures). Measures of access were categorised by access type, defined by Thomas and Penchansky, with further categorisation according to the 'Three Delay' model of seeking, reaching and receiving care, and the WHO's Emergency Care Systems Framework (ECSF).
A total of 3103 articles were screened. 75 met full study inclusion. Articles were uniformly descriptive (n=75, 100%). 137 discrete measures of access were reported. Unique measures of accommodation (n=42, 30.7%) and availability (n=40, 29.2%) were most common. Measures of seeking, reaching and receiving care were 22 (16.0%), 46 (33.6%) and 69 (50.4%), respectively. According to the ECSF slightly more measures focused on prehospital care-inclusive of care at the scene and through transport to a facility (n=76, 55.4%) as compared with facility-based care (n=57, 41.6%).
Numerous measures of emergency care access are described in the literature, but many measures are overaddressed. Development of a core set of access measures with associated minimum standards are necessary to aid in ensuring universal access to high-quality emergency care in all settings.
在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),超过 50%的年度死亡人数本可以通过获得高质量的紧急护理来避免。
我们对文献进行了范围综述,这些文献至少描述了 LMICs 中一项紧急护理获取措施,以便了解紧急护理系统的相关障碍。
1990 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 30 日期间以英文发表的研究,描述了一个或多个在 LMICs 中获得紧急卫生服务的离散措施。
PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、CINAHL 和灰色文献。
使用结构化的数据提取工具来识别和分类“独特”措施的数量,以及文献中每个独特措施的研究次数(“总”措施)。根据托马斯和彭钱斯基的定义,通过准入类型对准入措施进行分类,进一步根据寻求、到达和接受护理的“三延迟”模型以及世卫组织的紧急护理系统框架(ECSF)进行分类。
共筛选了 3103 篇文章。75 篇文章符合全部纳入标准。文章均为描述性(n=75,100%)。报告了 137 项独特的准入措施。住宿(n=42,30.7%)和可用性(n=40,29.2%)的准入措施最为常见。寻求、到达和接受护理的措施分别为 22(16.0%)、46(33.6%)和 69(50.4%)。根据 ECSF,与基于设施的护理(n=57,41.6%)相比,更多的措施侧重于包括现场和通过运输到医疗机构的院前护理(n=76,55.4%)。
文献中描述了许多紧急护理获取措施,但许多措施被过度关注。需要制定一套核心的获取措施和相关的最低标准,以帮助确保在所有环境中都能普遍获得高质量的紧急护理。