Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://open.uns.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6988
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMarija Vukojaen_US
dc.contributor.authorRiviello E.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGavrilović, Srđanen_US
dc.contributor.authorAdhikari N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKashyap R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBhagwanjee S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorGajić, Ognjenen_US
dc.contributor.authorKilickaya O.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-30T08:58:53Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-30T08:58:53Z-
dc.date.issued2014-01-01-
dc.identifier.issn22118160en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://open.uns.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6988-
dc.description.abstract© 2014 World Heart Federation (Geneva). Background: Timely and appropriate care is the key to achieving good outcomes in acutely ill patients, but the effectiveness of critical care may be limited in resource-limited settings. Objectives: This study sought to understand how to implement best practices in intensive care units (ICU) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and to develop a point-of-care training and decision-support tool. Methods: An internationally representative group of clinicians performed a 22-item capacity-and-needs assessment survey in a convenience sample of 13 ICU in Eastern Europe (4), Asia (4), Latin America (3), and Africa (2), between April and July 2012. Two ICU were from low-income, 2 from low-middle-income, and 9 from upper-middle-income countries. Clinician respondents were asked about bed capacity, patient characteristics, human resources, available medications and equipment, access to education, and processes of care. Results: Thirteen clinicians from each of 13 hospitals (1 per ICU) responded. Surveyed hospitals had median of 560 (interquartile range [IQR]: 232, 1,200) beds. ICU had a median of 9 (IQR: 7, 12) beds and treated 40 (IQR: 20, 67) patients per month. Many ICU had ≥1 staff member with some formal critical care training (n = 9, 69%) or who completed Fundamental Critical Care Support (n = 7, 54%) or Advanced Cardiac Life Support (n = 9, 69%) courses. Only 2 ICU (15%) used any kind of checklists for acute resuscitation. Ten (77%) ICU listed lack of trained staff as the most important barrier to improving the care and outcomes of critically ill patients. Conclusions: In a convenience sample of 13 ICU from LMIC, specialty-trained staff and standardized processes of care such as checklists are frequently lacking. ICU needs-assessment evaluations should be expanded in LMIC as a global priority, with the goal of creating and evaluating context-appropriate checklists for ICU best practices.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofGlobal Hearten_US
dc.subjectcritical careen_US
dc.subjectintensive care unitsen_US
dc.subjectchecklistsen_US
dc.titleA survey on critical care resources and practices in low- and middle-income countriesen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.gheart.2014.08.002-
dc.identifier.pmid9-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84927597372-
dc.identifier.urlhttps://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84927597372-
dc.description.versionPublisheden_US
dc.relation.lastpage3.42E+07en_US
dc.relation.firstpage337en_US
dc.relation.issue3en_US
dc.relation.volume9en_US
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
crisitem.author.deptMedicinski fakultet, Katedra za internu medicinu-
crisitem.author.parentorgMedicinski fakultet-
Appears in Collections:MDF Publikacije/Publications
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

63
checked on May 10, 2024

Page view(s)

14
Last Week
3
Last month
2
checked on May 10, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.