Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

ObjectiveTo describe the lessons learnt during the promotion of a new approach to the care of critically ill patients in TanzaniaEssential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC).DesignA descriptive qualitative study using thematic analysis of structured interviews.Setting and participantsThe study was conducted in Tanzania, involving 11 policymakers, researchers and senior clinicians who participated in the promotion of EECC in the country.FindingsFive inter-related themes emerged from the promotion of EECC in Tanzania: (1) early and close collaboration with the government and stakeholders; (2) conduct research and use evidence; (3) prioritise advocacy and address misconceptions about EECC; (4) leverage events and embed activities in other health system interventions; and (5) employ a multifaceted implementation strategy. The themes map to the normalisation process theory domains of coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring.ConclusionThe integration of EECC into Tanzania’s health policy is a result of a multidisciplinary collaboration including government and partners that has used evidence, advocacy and context and included multifaceted implementation strategies. The lessons from Tanzania’s experience provide guidance for adoption in similar settings to improve critical care systems, foster access to care and optimal outcomes for all critically ill patients.

Background Critical illness is a state of ill health with vital organ dysfunction, a high risk of imminent death if care is not provided and potential for reversibility. The burden of critical illness is high, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Critical care can be provided as Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC)– the effective, low-cost, basic care that all critically ill patients should receive in all parts of all hospitals in the world– and advanced critical care– complex, resource-intensive care usually provided in an intensive care unit. The required resources may be available in the hospital and yet not be ready in the wards for immediate use for critically ill patients. The ward readiness of these resources, although harder to evaluate, is likely more important than their availability in the hospital. This study aimed to assess the ward readiness for EECC and the hospital availability of resources for EECC and for advanced critical care in hospitals in Tanzania. Methods An in-depth, cross-sectional study was conducted in five purposively selected hospitals by visiting all wards to collect data on all the required 66 EECC and 161 advanced critical care resources. We defined hospital-availability as a resource present in the hospital and ward-readiness as a resource available, functioning, and present in the right place, time and amounts for critically ill patient care in the wards. Data were analyzed to calculate availability and readiness scores as proportions of the resources that were available at hospital level, and ready at ward level respectively. Results Availability of EECC resources in hospitals was 84% and readiness in the wards was 56%. District hospitals had lower readiness scores (less than 50%) than regional and tertiary hospitals. Equipment readiness was highest (65%) while that of guidelines lowest (3%). Availability of advanced critical care resources was 31%. Conclusion Hospitals in Tanzania lack readiness for the provision of EECC– the low-cost, life-saving care for critically ill patients. The resources for EECC were available in hospitals, but were not ready for the immediate needs of critically ill patients in the wards. To provide effective EECC to all patients, improvements are needed around the essential, low-cost resources in hospital wards that are essential for decreasing preventable deaths.

Background When caring for critically ill patients, health workers often need to ‘call-for-help’ to get assistance from colleagues in the hospital. Systems are required to facilitate calling-for-help and enable the timely provision of care for critically ill patients. Evidence around calling-for-help systems is mostly from high income countries and the state of calling-for-help in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya has not been formally studied. This study aims to describe health workers’ experiences about calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients in hospitals in Tanzania and Kenya. Methods Ten hospitals across Kenya and Tanzania were visited and in-depth interviews conducted with 30 health workers who had experience of caring for critically ill patients. The interviews were transcribed, translated and the data thematically analyzed. Results The study identified three thematic areas concerning the systems for calling-for-help when taking care of critically ill patients: 1) Calling-for-help structures: there is lack of functioning structures for calling-for-help; 2) Calling-for-help processes: the calling-for-help processes are innovative and improvised; and 3) Calling-for-help outcomes: the help that is provided is not as requested. Conclusion Calling-for-help when taking care of a critically ill patient is a necessary life-saving part of care, but health workers in Tanzanian and Kenyan hospitals experience a range of significant challenges. Hospitals lack functioning structures, processes for calling-for-help are improvised and help that is provided is not as requested. These challenges likely cause delays and decrease the quality of care, potentially resulting in unnecessary mortality and morbidity.

ObjectivesCritical care is essential in saving lives of critically ill patients, however, provision of critical care across lower resource settings can be costly, fragmented and heterogenous. Despite the urgent need to scale up the provision of critical care, little is known about its availability and cost. Here, we aim to systematically review and identify reported resource use, availability and costs for the provision of critical care and the nature of critical care provision in Tanzania.DesignThis is a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMedline, Embase and Global Health databases were searched covering the period 2010 to 17 November 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that reported on forms of critical care offered, critical care services offered and/or costs and resources used in the provision of care in Tanzania published from 2010.Data extraction and synthesisQuality assessment of the articles and data extraction was done by two independent researchers. The Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions was used to assess quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis of extracted data was conducted. Costs were adjusted and reported in 2019 US$ and TZS using the World Bank GDP deflators.ResultsA total 31 studies were found to fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Critical care identified in Tanzania was categorised into: intensive care unit (ICU) delivered critical care and non-ICU critical care. The availability of ICU delivered critical care was limited to urban settings whereas non-ICU critical care was found in rural and urban settings. Paediatric critical care equipment was more scarce than equipment for adults. 15 studies reported on the costs of services related to critical care yet no study reported an average or unit cost of critical care. Costs of medication, equipment (eg, oxygen, personal protective equipment), services and human resources were identified as inputs to specific critical care services in Tanzania.ConclusionThere is limited evidence on the resource use, availability and costs of critical care in Tanzania. There is a strong need for further empirical research on critical care resources availability, utilisation and costs across specialties and hospitals of different level in low/middle-income countries like Tanzania to inform planning, priority setting and budgeting for critical care services.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020221923.

Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) is a novel approach to the care of critically ill patients, focusing on first-tier, effective, low-cost, life-saving care and designed to be feasible even in low-resourced and low-staffed settings. This is distinct from advanced critical care, usually conducted in ICUs with specialised staff, facilities and technologies. This paper estimates the incremental cost of EECC and advanced critical care for the planning of care for critically ill patients in Tanzania and Kenya. The incremental costing took a health systems perspective. A normative approach based on the ingredients defined through the recently published global consensus on EECC was used. The setting was a district hospital in which the patient is provided with the definitive care typically provided at that level for their condition. Quantification of resource use was based on COVID-19 as a tracer condition using clinical expertise. Local prices were used where available, and all costs were converted to USD2020. The costs per patient day of EECC is estimated to be 1 USD, 11 USD and 33 USD in Tanzania and 2 USD, 14 USD and 37 USD in Kenya, for moderate, severe and critical COVID-19 patients respectively. The cost per patient day of advanced critical care is estimated to be 13 USD and 294 USD in Tanzania and USD 17 USD and 345 USD in Kenya for severe and critical COVID-19 patients, respectively. EECC is a novel approach for providing the essential care to all critically ill patients. The low costs and lower tech approach inherent in delivering EECC mean that EECC could be provided to many and suggests that prioritizing EECC over ACC may be a rational approach when resources are limited. Graphical Abstract

ObjectivesThird delay refers to delays in delivering requisite care to patients after they arrive at a health facility. In low-resource care settings, effective triage and flow of care are difficult to guarantee. In this study, we aimed to identify delays in the delivery of care to critically ill patients and possible ways to address these delays.DesignThis was an exploratory qualitative study using in-depth interviews and patient journeys. The qualitative data were transcribed and aggregated into themes in NVivo V.12 Plus using inductive and deductive approaches.SettingThis study was conducted in four secondary-level public Kenyan hospitals across four counties between March and December 2021. The selected hospitals were part of the Clinical Information Network.ParticipantsPurposive sampling method was used to identify administrative and front-line healthcare providers and patients. We conducted 12 in-depth interviews with 11 healthcare workers and patient journeys of 7 patients. Informed consent was sought from the participants and maintained throughout the study.ResultsWe identified a cycle of suboptimal systems for care with adaptive mechanisms that prevent quality care to critically ill patients. We identified suboptimal systems for identification of critical illness, inadequate resources for continuity care and disruption of the flow of care, as the major causes of delays in identification and the initiation of essential care to critically ill patients. Our study also illuminated the contribution of inflexible bureaucratic non-clinical business-related organisational processes to third delay.ConclusionEliminating or reducing delays after patients arrive at the hospital is a time-sensitive measure that could improve the care outcomes of critically ill patients. This is achievable through an essential emergency and critical care package within the hospitals. Our findings can help emphasise the need for standardised effective and reliable care priorities to maintain of care of critically ill patients.

Care for the critically ill patients is often considered synonymous with a hospital having an intensive care unit. However, a focus on Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) may obviate the need for much intensive care. Severe COVID-19 presented a specific critical care challenge while also being an exemplar of critical illness in general. Our multidisciplinary team conducted research in Kenya and Tanzania on hospitals’ ability to provide EECC as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. Important basic inputs were often lacking, especially sufficient numbers of skilled health workers. However, we learnt that higher scores on resource readiness scales were often misleading, as resources were often insufficient or not functional in all the clinical areas they are needed. By following patient journeys, through interviews and group discussions, we revealed gaps in timeliness, continuity and delivery of care. Generic challenges in transitions between departments were identified in the receipt of critically ill patients, the ability to sustain monitoring and treatment and preparation for any subsequent transition. While the global response to COVID-19 focused initially on providing technologies and training, first ventilators and later oxygen, organisational and procedural challenges seemed largely ignored. Yet, they may even be exacerbated by new technologies. Efforts to improve care for the critically ill patients, which is a complex process, must include a whole system and whole facility view spanning all areas of patients’ care and their transitions and not be focused on a single location providing ‘critical care’. We propose a five-part strategy to support the system changes needed.

IntroductionCritical care is essential in saving lives of those that are critically ill, however, provision of critical care can be costly and heterogeneous across lower-resource settings. This paper describes the protocol for a systematic review of the literature that aims to identify the reported costs and resources available for the provision of critical care and the forms of critical care provision in Tanzania.Methods and analysisThe review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase and Global Health) will be searched to identify articles that report the forms of critical care, resources used in the provision of critical care in Tanzania, their availability and the associated costs. The search strategy will be developed from four key concepts; critical care provision, critical illness, resource use, Tanzania. The articles that fulfil the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be assessed for quality using the Reference Case for Estimating the Costs of Global Health Services and Interventions checklist. The extracted data will be summarised using descriptive statistics including frequencies, mean and median of the quantity and costs of resources used in the components of critical care services, depending on the data availability. This study will be carried out between February and November 2021.Ethics and disseminationThis study is a review of secondary data and ethical clearance was sought from and granted by the Tanzanian National Institute of Medical Research (reference: NIMR/HQ/R.8a/Vol. IX/3537) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (ethics ref: 22866). We will publish the review in a peer-reviewed journal as an open access article in addition to presenting the findings at conferences and public scientific gatherings.PROSPERO registration numberThe protocol was registered with PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020221923.

Hospital patients can become critically ill anywhere in a hospital but their survival is affected by problems of identification and adequate, timely, treatment. This is issue of particular concern in lower middle-income countries' (LMICs) hospitals where specialised units are scarce and severely under-resourced. \"Cross-sectional\" approaches to improving narrow, specific aspects of care will not attend to issues that affect patients' care across the length of their experience. A simpler approach to understanding key issues across the \"hospital journey\" could help to deliver life-saving treatments to those patients who need it, wherever they are in the facility. We carried out 31 narrative interviews with frontline health workers in five Kenyan and five Tanzanian hospitals from November 2020 to December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic and analysed using a thematic analysis approach. We also followed 12 patient hospital journeys, through the course of treatment of very sick patients admitted to the hospitals we studied. Our research explores gaps in hospital systems that result in lapses in effective, continuous care across the hospital journeys of patients in Tanzania and Kenya. We organise these factors according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) approach to patient safety, which we extend to explore how these issues affect patients across the course of care. We discern three repeating, recursive phases we term Receive, Sustain, and Flow. We use this heuristic to show how gaps and weaknesses in service provision affect critically ill patients' hospital journeys. Receive, Sustain, and Flow offers a heuristic for hospital management to identify and ameliorate limitations in human and technical resources for the care of the critically ill.