Defining measures of emergency care access in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review

• Published in: BMJ open 2023-04, Vol.13 (4), p.e067884-e067884
• Main Authors: Hirner, Sarah, Dhakal, Jyotshila, Broccoli, Morgan Carol, Ross, Madeline, Calvello Hynes, Emilie J, Bills, Corey B
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE; Accommodation, Ocular; Developing Countries; Emergency medical care; Emergency Medical Services; Emergency Medicine; Health care policy; Health facilities; Health policy; Humans; Infectious diseases; International health services; Low income groups; Mortality; Pandemics; Patient satisfaction; PUBLIC HEALTH; Quality of Health Care; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067884

BackgroundOver 50% of annual deaths in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) could be averted through access to high-quality emergency care.ObjectivesWe 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.Eligibility criteriaEnglish 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.Source of evidencePubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the grey literature.Charting methodsA 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).ResultsA 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%).ConclusionsNumerous 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.