O processo de implantação das unidades de pronto atendimento no Brasil

OBJETIVO: Analisar o processo de implantação das unidades de pronto atendimento no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Realizou-se análise documental, entrevistas com 24 coordenadores estaduais de urgência e um painel de especialistas. Analisaram-se questões relativas a: antecedentes e trajetória da política; atores envolvidos na implantação; processo de expansão; avanços, limites e dificuldades de implantação; e capacidade de coordenação estadual. Utilizou-se o referencial teórico da análise da conduta estratégica da teoria da estruturação de Giddens. RESULTADOS: As unidades de pronto atendimento foram implantadas a partir de 2007, inicialmente na região Sudeste, e em 2016 existiam 446 unidades de pronto atendimento considerando todas as regiões. Atualmente, há 620 unidades de pronto atendimento em construção, indicando expectativa de expansão. O financiamento federal foi um forte indutor da implantação. Os estados planejaram suas unidades de pronto atendimento, mas a existência de negociação direta entre os municípios e a União contribuiu com o significativo número de unidades de pronto atendimento construídas que não funcionam. Em relação à rede de urgência, há tensão com o hospital pela insuficiência de leitos no país, gerando internação na unidade de pronto atendimento. A gestão das unidades de pronto atendimento é predominantemente municipal, com a maioria das unidades de pronto atendimento localizadas fora das capitais e classificadas como Porte III. Os principais desafios identificados foram: o sub-financiamento e a dificuldade de contratar médicos. CONCLUSÕES: A unidade de pronto atendimento tem o mérito de ter recursos tecnológicos e ser arquitetonicamente diferenciada, mas só será bem-sucedida dentro de uma rede de urgência. A indução federal gerou respostas contraditórias, pois nem todos os estados consideram a unidade de pronto atendimento como prioritária. O fortalecimento da gestão estadual foi identificado como desafio para a implantação da rede de urgências.OBJECTIVE: To analyze the process of implementation of emergency care units in Brazil. METHODS: We have carried out a documentary analysis, with interviews with twenty-four state urgency coordinators and a panel of experts. We have analyzed issues related to policy background and trajectory, players involved in the implementation, expansion process, advances, limits, and implementation difficulties, and state coordination capacity. We have used the theoretical framework of the analysis of the strategic conduct of the Giddens theory of structuration. RESULTS: Emergency care units have been implemented after 2007, initially in the Southeast region, and 446 emergency care units were present in all Brazilian regions in 2016. Currently, 620 emergency care units are under construction, which indicates expectation of expansion. Federal funding was a strong driver for the implementation. The states have planned their emergency care units, but the existence of direct negotiation between municipalities and the Union has contributed with the significant number of emergency care units that have been built but that do not work. In relation to the urgency network, there is tension with the hospital because of the lack of beds in the country, which generates hospitalizations in the emergency care unit. The management of emergency care units is predominantly municipal, and most of the emergency care units are located outside the capitals and classified as Size III. The main challenges identified were: under-funding and difficulty in recruiting physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The emergency care unit has the merit of having technological resources and being architecturally differentiated, but it will only succeed within an urgency network. Federal induction has generated contradictory responses, since not all states consider the emergency care unit a priority. The strengthening of the state management has been identified as a challenge for the implementation of the urgency network

The process of implementation of emergency care units in Brazil

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To analyze the process of implementation of emergency care units in Brazil. METHODS We have carried out a documentary analysis, with interviews with twenty-four state urgency coordinators and a panel of experts. We have analyzed issues related to policy background and trajectory, players involved in the implementation, expansion process, advances, limits, and implementation difficulties, and state coordination capacity. We have used the theoretical framework of the analysis of the strategic conduct of the Giddens theory of structuration. RESULTS Emergency care units have been implemented after 2007, initially in the Southeast region, and 446 emergency care units were present in all Brazilian regions in 2016. Currently, 620 emergency care units are under construction, which indicates expectation of expansion. Federal funding was a strong driver for the implementation. The states have planned their emergency care units, but the existence of direct negotiation between municipalities and the Union has contributed with the significant number of emergency care units that have been built but that do not work. In relation to the urgency network, there is tension with the hospital because of the lack of beds in the country, which generates hospitalizations in the emergency care unit. The management of emergency care units is predominantly municipal, and most of the emergency care units are located outside the capitals and classified as Size III. The main challenges identified were: under-funding and difficulty in recruiting physicians. CONCLUSIONS The emergency care unit has the merit of having technological resources and being architecturally differentiated, but it will only succeed within an urgency network. Federal induction has generated contradictory responses, since not all states consider the emergency care unit a priority. The strengthening of the state management has been identified as a challenge for the implementation of the urgency network

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity

Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria.Results A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)).Conclusion Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Association of Country Income Level With the Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized With Acute Kidney Injury and COVID-19

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as one of the most common and significant problems in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and AKI in low- and low-middle income countries (LLMIC) are lacking. Given that AKI is known to carry a higher mortality rate in these countries, it is important to understand differences in this population. Methods: This prospective, observational study examines the AKI incidence and characteristics of 32,210 patients with COVID-19 from 49 countries across all income levels who were admitted to an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. Results: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, AKI incidence was highest in patients in LLMIC, followed by patients in upper-middle income countries (UMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) (53%, 38%, and 30%, respectively), whereas dialysis rates were lowest among patients with AKI from LLMIC and highest among those from HIC (27% vs. 45%). Patients with AKI in LLMIC had the largest proportion of community-acquired AKI (CA-AKI) and highest rate of in-hospital death (79% vs. 54% in HIC and 66% in UMIC). The association between AKI, being from LLMIC and in-hospital death persisted even after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: AKI is a particularly devastating complication of COVID-19 among patients from poorer nations where the gaps in accessibility and quality of healthcare delivery have a major impact on patient outcomes

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc