Nee-Kofi Mould-Millman

Children and Adults With Frequent Hospitalizations for Asthma Exacerbation, 2012-2013: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND Earlier studies reported that many patients were frequently hospitalized for asthma exacerbation. However, there have been no recent multicenter studies to characterize this patient population with high morbidity and health care utilization. OBJECTIVE To examine the proportion and characteristics of children and adults with frequent hospitalizations for asthma exacerbation. METHODS A multicenter chart review study of patients aged 2 to 54 years who were hospitalized for asthma exacerbation at 1 of 25 hospitals across 18 US states during the period 2012 to 2013 was carried out. The primary outcome was frequency of hospitalizations for asthma exacerbation in the past year (including the index hospitalization). RESULTS The cohort included 369 children (aged 2-17 years) and 555 adults (aged 18-54 years) hospitalized for asthma exacerbation. Over the 12-month period, 36% of the children and 42% of the adults had 2 or more (frequent) hospitalizations for asthma exacerbation. Among patients with frequent hospitalizations, guideline-recommended outpatient management was suboptimal. For example, among adults, 32% were not on inhaled corticosteroids at the time of index hospitalization and 75% had no evidence of a previous evaluation by an asthma specialist. At hospital discharge, among adults with frequent hospitalizations who had used no controller medications previously, 37% were not prescribed inhaled corticosteroids. Likewise, during a 3-month postdischarge period, 64% of the adults with frequent hospitalizations were not referred to an asthma specialist. Although the proportion of patients who did not receive these guideline-recommended outpatient care appeared higher in adults, these preventive measures were still underutilized in children; for example, 38% of the children with frequent hospitalizations were not referred to asthma specialist after the index hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS This multicenter study of US patients hospitalized with asthma exacerbation demonstrated a disturbingly high proportion of patients with frequent hospitalizations and ongoing evidence of suboptimal longitudinal asthma care.

Underuse of guideline-recommended long-term asthma management in children hospitalized to the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND Despite the significant burden of childhood asthma, little is known about prevention-oriented management before and after hospitalizations for asthma exacerbation. OBJECTIVE To investigate the proportion and characteristics of children admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for asthma exacerbation and the frequency of guideline-recommended outpatient management before and after the hospitalization. METHODS A 14-center medical record review study of children aged 2 to 17 years hospitalized for asthma exacerbation during 2012-2013. Primary outcome was admission to the ICU; secondary outcomes were 2 preventive factors: inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use and evaluation by asthma specialists in the pre- and posthospitalization periods. RESULTS Among 385 children hospitalized for asthma, 130 (34%) were admitted to the ICU. Risk factors for ICU admission were female sex, having public insurance, a marker of chronic asthma severity (ICS use), and no prior evaluation by an asthma specialist. Among children with ICU admission, guideline-recommended outpatient management was suboptimal (eg, 65% were taking ICSs at the time of index hospitalization, and 19% had evidence of a prior evaluation by specialist). At hospital discharge, among children with ICU admission who had not previously used controller medications, 85% were prescribed ICSs. Furthermore, 62% of all children with ICU admission were referred to an asthma specialist during the 3-month posthospitalization period. CONCLUSION In this multicenter study of US children hospitalized with asthma exacerbation, one-third of children were admitted to the ICU. In this high-risk group, we observed suboptimal pre- and posthospitalization asthma care. These findings underscore the importance of continued efforts to improve prevention-oriented asthma care at all clinical encounters.

Prehospital Research in Sub-Saharan Africa: Establishing Research Tenets

Prehospital care constitutes an important link in the continuum of emergency care and confers a survival benefit to injured and ill persons. As development of acute and emergency care in sub-Saharan Africa expands, there is a strong need to improve the delivery of prehospital care to help relieve the overwhelming regional morbidity and mortality attributable to time-sensitive, life-threatening conditions. Effective research is integral to prehospital care development, as it helps quantify the need for prehospital care and tests effective solutions. Unfortunately, there is limited consensus guiding such research in the low-resource nations of sub-Saharan Africa that face unique challenges. This article aims to assimilate the current pertinent literature to demonstrate research success stories and challenges, and ultimately to build on previous efforts to establish prehospital research priorities for sub-Saharan Africa. Region-specific obstacles hindering prehospital research include the lack of epidemiologic data on emergency conditions, the underdevelopment of in-hospital emergency care, confusing prehospital terminology, poorly defined prehospital research priorities, the lack of qualified local prehospital researchers, and a poor understanding of local prehospital care systems. Solutions are offered to overcome each challenge by building on previous recommendations, by proposing new guiding principles, and by identifying areas where further consensus-building is needed. These guiding principles and suggestions are designed to steer discussions and output from future global health meetings targeted at improving prehospital research and development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Trauma Center Staffing, Infrastructure, and Patient Characteristics that Influence Trauma Center Need

Introduction The most effective use of trauma center resources helps reduce morbidity and mortality, while saving costs. Identifying critical infrastructure characteristics, patient characteristics and staffing components of a trauma center associated with the proportion of patients needing major trauma care will help planners create better systems for patient care. Methods We used the 2009 National Trauma Data Bank-Research Dataset to determine the proportion of critically injured patients requiring the resources of a trauma center within each Level I–IV trauma center (n=443). The outcome variable was defined as the portion of treated patients who were critically injured. We defined the need for critical trauma resources and interventions (“trauma center need”) as death prior to hospital discharge, admission to the intensive care unit, or admission to the operating room from the emergency department as a result of acute traumatic injury. Generalized Linear Modeling (GLM) was used to determine how hospital infrastructure, staffing Levels, and patient characteristics contributed to trauma center need. Results Nonprofit Level I and II trauma centers were significantly associated with higher levels of trauma center need. Trauma centers that had a higher percentage of transferred patients or a lower percentage of insured patients were associated with a higher proportion of trauma center need. Hospital infrastructure characteristics, such as bed capacity and intensive care unit capacity, were not associated with trauma center need. A GLM for Level III and IV trauma centers showed that the number of trauma surgeons on staff was associated with trauma center need. Conclusion Because the proportion of trauma center need is predominantly influenced by hospital type, transfer frequency, and insurance status, it is important for administrators to consider patient population characteristics of the catchment area when planning the construction of new trauma centers or when coordinating care within state or regional trauma systems.

Smoking status and smoking cessation intervention among U.S. adults hospitalized for asthma exacerbation.

BACKGROUND In a previous multicenter study during 1999-2000, we found a high prevalence of smoking among patients hospitalized for asthma exacerbations (35%) and suboptimal smoking cessation efforts. There have been no recent multicenter efforts to examine the smoking status and implementation of smoking cessation efforts among patients hospitalized for asthma exacerbation. OBJECTIVE To investigate the prevalence of cigarette smoking and the proportion and characteristics of patients who received an inpatient smoking cessation intervention. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of a 25-center observational study, which included 597 U.S. adults hospitalized for asthma exacerbation during 2012-2013. RESULTS Among the analytic cohort, 215 (36%) were current smokers. In the multivariable model, compared with patients with private health insurance, those with public health insurance (odds ratio [OR] 1.71 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.06-2.77]) or no health insurance (OR 1.75 [95% CI, 1.02-2.99]) were more likely to be current smokers. By contrast, patients with a previous evaluation by an asthma specialist in the past 12 months (OR 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28-0.86]) and use of inhaled corticosteroids (OR 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.93]) were less likely to be current smokers. Among current smokers, only 55% received smoking cessation interventions during their hospitalization. In the multivariable model, current smokers who had public health insurance (OR 0.25 [95% CI, 0.07-0.82]) or no health insurance (OR 0.26 [95% CI, 0.07-0.94]) were less likely to receive inpatient smoking cessation interventions compared with those with private health insurance. CONCLUSION Our findings showed a persistently high prevalence of smokers among U.S. patients hospitalized for asthma exacerbations and an underutilized opportunity to provide this at-risk population with smoking cessation interventions.

Access to out-of-hospital emergency care in Africa: Consensus conference recommendations

Out-of-hospital emergency care (OHEC) should be accessible to all who require it. However, available data suggests that there are a number of barriers to such access in Africa, mainly centred around challenges in public knowledge, perception and appropriate utilisation of OHEC. Having reached consensus in 2013 on a two-tier system of African OHEC, the African Federation for Emergency Medicine (AFEM) OHEC Group sought to gain further consensus on the narrower subject of access to OHEC in Africa. The objective of this paper is to report the outputs and statements arising from the AFEM OHEC access consensus meeting held in Cape Town, South Africa in April 2015. The discussion was structured around six dimensions of access to care (i.e. awareness, availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability and acceptability) and tackled both Tier-1 (community first responder) and Tier-2 (formal prehospital services and Emergency Medical Services) OHEC systems. In Tier-1 systems, the role of community involvement and support was emphasised, along with the importance of a first responder system acceptable to the community in which it is embedded in order to optimise access. In Tier-2 systems, the consensus group highlighted the primacy of a single toll-free emergency number, matching of Emergency Medical Services resource demand and availability through appropriate planning and the cost-free nature of Tier-2 emergency care, amongst other factors that impact accessibility. Much work is still needed in prioritising the steps and clarifying the tools and metrics that would enable the ideal of optimal access to OHEC in Africa.

Emergency medical services (EMS) training in Kenya: Findings and recommendations from an educational assessment

Background Over the past twenty years, Kenya has been developing many important components of a prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) system. This is due to the ever-increasing demand for emergency medical care across the country. To better inform the next phase of this development, we undertook an assessment of the current state of EMS training in Kenya. Methods A group of international and Kenyan experts with relevant EMS and educational expertise conducted an observational qualitative assessment of Kenyan EMS training institutions in 2016. Three assessment techniques were utilised: semi-structured interviews, document review, and structured observations. Recommendations were reached through a consensus process amongst the assessment team. Results Key findings include: (i) No national or state-level policy exists that establishes levels of EMS providers or expected fund of knowledge and skills; (ii) Training institutions have independently created their own individual training standards; (iii) Training materials are not adapted for the local context; (iv) The foundation of basic anatomy and physiology education is weak; (v) Training does not focus on symptom- or syndrome-based complaints; (vi) Students had difficulty applying foundational classroom knowledge in simulations and clinical encounters; (vii) There is limited emphasis on complex critical thinking. Discussion Standardisation of training is needed in Kenya, including clearly defined levels of providers and expected learning outcomes. A nationally standardised EMS provider scope of practice may also help focus EMS education. Instructors must reinforce basic anatomy and physiology amongst all trainees to establish a robust foundation, then layer on field experience before trainees receive advanced training. Training graduates should be EMS providers who approach patient care with high-order symptom- or syndrome-based critical thinking. While these recommendations are specific to the Kenyan EMS environment, they may have wider applicability to other developing EMS systems in resource-limited settings.

Time to standardise levels of care amongst Out-of-Hospital Emergency Care providers in Africa

The African Federation for Emergency Medicine’s Out-of-Hospital Emergency Care (OHEC) Committee convened 15 experts from various OHEC systems in Africa to participate in a consensus process to define levels of care within which providers in African OHEC systems should safely and effectively function. The expert panel concluded that four provider levels were relevant for African OHEC systems: (i) first aid, (ii) basic life support, (iii) intermediate life support, and (iv) advanced life support. Definitions for each provider level were also created to aid standardisation of providers across Africa and to help advance the practice of OHEC.