Categorization, Designation, and Regionalization of Emergency Care: Definitions, a Conceptual Framework, and Future Challenges

This article reflects the proceedings of a breakout session, “Beyond ED Categorization—Matching Networks to Patient Needs,” at the 2010 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference, “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” It is based on concepts and areas of priority identified and developed by the authors and participants at the conference. The paper first describes definitions fundamental to understanding the categorization, designation, and regionalization of emergency care and then considers a conceptual framework for this process. It also provides a justification for a categorization system being integrated into a regionalized emergency care system. Finally, it discusses potential challenges and barriers to the adoption of a categorization and designation system for emergency care and the opportunities for researchers to study the many issues associated with the implementation of such a system.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1306–1311 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79324/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00932.x.pd

Pain Intervention for Infant Lumbar Puncture in the Emergency Department: Physician Practice and Beliefs

Objectives:  The objectives were to characterize physician beliefs and practice of analgesia and anesthesia use for infant lumbar puncture (LP) in the emergency department (ED) and to determine if provider training type, experience, and beliefs are associated with reported pain intervention use. Methods:  An anonymous survey was distributed to ED faculty and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows at five Midwestern hospitals. Questions consisted of categorical, yes/no, descriptive, and incremental responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs). Results:  A total of 156 of 164 surveys (95%) distributed were completed and analyzed. Training background of respondents was 52% emergency medicine (EM), 30% PEM, and 18% pediatrics. Across training types, there was no difference in the belief that pain treatment was worthwhile (overall 78%) or in the likelihood of using at least one pain intervention. Pharmacologic pain interventions (sucrose, injectable lidocaine, and topical anesthetic) were used in the majority of LPs by 20, 29, and 27% of respondents, respectively. Nonpharmacologic pain intervention (pacifier/nonnutritive sucking) was used in the majority of LPs by 67% of respondents. Many respondents indicated that they never used sucrose (53%), lidocaine (41%), or anesthetic cream (49%). Physicians who thought pain treatment was worthwhile were more likely to use both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain interventions than those who did not (93% vs. 53%, OR = 10.98, 95% CI = 4.16 to 29.00). The number of LPs performed or supervised per year was not associated with pain intervention use. Other than pacifiers, injectable lidocaine was the most frequently reported pain intervention. Conclusions:  Provider beliefs regarding infant pain are associated with variation in anesthesia and analgesia use during infant LP in the ED. Although the majority of physicians hold the belief that pain intervention is worthwhile in this patient group, self‐reported pharmacologic interventions to reduce pain associated with infant LP are used regularly by less than one‐third. Strategies targeting physician beliefs on infant pain should be developed to improve pain intervention use in the ED for infant LPs.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98758/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00970.x.pd

Prepared to react? Assessing the functional capacity of the primary health care system in rural Orissa, India to respond to the devastating flood of September 2008

Background: Early detection of an impending flood and the availability of countermeasures to deal with it can significantly reduce its health impacts. In developing countries like India, public primary health care facilities are frontline organizations that deal with disasters particularly in rural settings. For developing robust counter reacting systems evaluating preparedness capacities within existing systems becomes necessary. Objective: The objective of the study is to assess the functional capacity of the primary health care system in Jagatsinghpur district of rural Orissa in India to respond to the devastating flood of September 2008. Methods: An onsite survey was conducted in all 29 primary and secondary facilities in five rural blocks (administrative units) of Jagatsinghpur district in Orissa state. A pre-tested structured questionnaire was administered face to face in the facilities. The data was entered, processed and analyzed using STATA® 10. Results: Data from our primary survey clearly shows that the healthcare facilities are ill prepared to handle the flood despite being faced by them annually. Basic utilities like electricity backup and essential medical supplies are lacking during floods. Lack of human resources along with missing standard operating procedures; pre-identified communication and incident command systems; effective leadership; and weak financial structures are the main hindering factors in mounting an adequate response to the floods. Conclusion: The 2008 flood challenged the primary curative and preventive health care services in Jagatsinghpur. Simple steps like developing facility specific preparedness plans which detail out standard operating procedures during floods and identify clear lines of command will go a long way in strengthening the response to future floods. Performance critiques provided by the grass roots workers, like this one, should be used for institutional learning and effective preparedness planning. Additionally each facility should maintain contingency funds for emergency response along with local vendor agreements to ensure stock supplies during floods. The facilities should ensure that baseline public health standards for health care delivery identified by the Government are met in non-flood periods in order to improve the response during floods. Building strong public primary health care systems is a development challenge. The recovery phases of disasters should be seen as an opportunity to expand and improve services and facilities