Regionalization of pediatric emergency care in Korea

In order to care for an ill or injured child, it is crucial that every emergency department (ED) has a minimum set of personnel and resources because the majority of children are brought to the geographically nearest ED. In addition to adequate preparation for basic pediatric emergency care, a comprehensive, specialized healthcare system should be in place for a critically-ill or injured victim. Regionalization of healthcare means a system providing high-quality and cost-effective care for victims who present with alow frequency, but critical condition, such as multiple trauma or cardiac arrest. Within the pediatric field, neonatal intensive care and pediatric trauma care are good examples of regionalization. For successful regionalized pediatric emergency care, all aspects of a pediatric emergency system, from pre-hospital field to hospital care, should be categorized and coordinated. Efforts to set up the pediatric emergency care regionalization program based on a nationwide healthcare system are urgently needed in Korea

Defining and Measuring Successful Emergency Care Networks: A Research Agenda

The demands on emergency services have grown relentlessly, and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has asserted the need for “regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems throughout the country.” There are large gaps in the evidence base needed to fix the problem of how emergency care is organized and delivered, and science is urgently needed to define and measure success in the emerging network of emergency care. In 2010, Academic Emergency Medicine convened a consensus conference entitled “Beyond Regionalization: Integrated Networks of Emergency Care.” This article is a product of the conference breakout session on “Defining and Measuring Successful Networks”; it explores the concept of integrated emergency care delivery and prioritizes a research agenda for how to best define and measure successful networks of emergency care. The authors discuss five key areas: 1) the fundamental metrics that are needed to measure networks across time-sensitive and non–time-sensitive conditions; 2) how networks can be scalable and nimble and can be creative in terms of best practices; 3) the potential unintended consequences of networks of emergency care; 4) the development of large-scale, yet feasible, network data systems; and 5) the linkage of data systems across the disease course. These knowledge gaps must be filled to improve the quality and efficiency of emergency care and to fulfill the IOM’s vision of regionalized, coordinated, and accountable emergency care systems.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:1297–1305 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicinePeer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79228/1/j.1553-2712.2010.00930.x.pd

Trauma networks: present and future challenges

In England, trauma is the leading cause of death across all age groups, with over 16,000 deaths per year. Major trauma implies the presence of multiple, serious injuries that could result in death or serious disability. Successive reports have documented the fact that the current ad hoc unstructured management of this patient group is associated with considerable avoidable death and disability. The reform of trauma care in England, especially of the severely injured patient, has already begun. Strong clinical leadership is embraced as the way forward. The present article summarises the steps that have been made over the last decade that led to the recent decision to move towards a long anticipated restructure of the National Health Service (NHS) trauma services with the introduction of Regional Trauma Networks (RTNs). While, for the first time, a genuine political will and support exists, the changes required to maintain the momentum for the implementation of the RTNs needs to be marshalled against arguments, myths and perceptions from the past. Such an approach may reverse the disinterest attitude of many, and will gradually evolve into a cultural shift of the public, clinicians and policymakers in the fullness of time

Injury in China: a systematic review of injury surveillance studies conducted in Chinese hospital emergency departments

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Injuries represent a significant and growing public health concern in China. This <it>Review </it>was conducted to document the characteristics of injured patients presenting to the emergency department of Chinese hospitals and to assess of the nature of information collected and reported in published surveillance studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic search of MEDLINE and China Academic Journals supplemented with a hand search of journals was performed. Studies published in the period 1997 to 2007 were included and research published in Chinese was the focus. Search terms included emergency, injury, medical care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 268 studies identified, 13 were injury surveillance studies set in the emergency department. Nine were collaborative studies of which eight were prospective studies. Of the five single centre studies only one was of a prospective design. Transport, falls and industrial injuries were common mechanisms of injury. Study strengths were large patient sample sizes and for the collaborative studies a large number of participating hospitals. There was however limited use of internationally recognised injury classification and severity coding indices.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the limited number of studies identified, the scope of each highlights the willingness and the capacity to conduct surveillance studies in the emergency department. This <it>Review </it>highlights the need for the adoption of standardized injury coding indices in the collection and reporting of patient health data. While high level injury surveillance systems focus on population-based priority setting, this <it>Review </it>demonstrates the need to establish an internationally comparable trauma registry that would permit monitoring of the trauma system and would by extension facilitate the optimal care of the injured patient through the development of informed quality assurance programs and the implementation of evidence-based health policy.</p

Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT

Background: Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections. Objectives: To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months’ duration. Design: Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial. Setting: Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only. Participants: Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months’ duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded. Interventions: Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme. Main outcome measures: In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups. Results: Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study. Limitations: Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder. Conclusions: Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. Future work: Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial. Trial registration: EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information