Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Evaluating emergency care capacity in Africa: an iterative, multicountry refinement of the Emergency Care Assessment Tool
  1. Crystal Bae1,2,
  2. Jennifer L Pigoga2,3,
  3. Megan Cox4,
  4. Bonaventure Hollong5,
  5. Joseph Kalanzi6,
  6. Gamal Abbas7,8,
  7. Lee A Wallis2,
  8. Emilie J Calvello Hynes9
  1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
  3. 3 Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  4. 4 Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana
  5. 5 Department of Emergency Medicine, Centre des Urgences de Yaounde, Yaounde, Cameroon
  6. 6 Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
  7. 7 Egyptian Resuscitation Council, Cairo, Egypt
  8. 8 Military Production Medical Center, Cairo, Egypt
  9. 9 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Crystal Bae; baecrystal{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Healthcare facilities in low-income and middle-income countries lack an objective measurement tool to assess emergency care capacity. The African Federation for Emergency Medicine developed the Emergency Care Assessment Tool (ECAT) to fulfil this function. The ECAT assesses the provision of key medical interventions (signal functions) that emergency units (EUs) should be able to perform to adequately treat six common, life-threatening conditions (sentinel conditions). We describe the piloting and refinement of the ECAT, to improve usability and context-appropriateness. We undertook iterative, multisite refinement of the ECAT. After pilot testing at a South African referral hospital, subsequent studies occurred at district, regional and central facilities across four countries representing the major regions of Africa: Cameroon, Uganda, Egypt and Botswana. At each site, the tool was administered to three participants: one senior physician, one senior nurse and one other clinical provider. Feedback informed refinements of the ECAT, and an updated tool was used in the next-studied country. Iteratively implementing refined versions of the tool in various contexts across Africa resulted in a final ECAT that uses signal functions, categorised by sentinel conditions and evaluated against discrete barriers to emergency care service delivery, to assess EUs. It also allowed for refinement of administration and data analysis processes. The ECAT has a total of 71 items. Advanced facilities are expected to perform all 71 signal functions, while intermediate facilities should be able to perform 53. The ECAT is the first tool to provide a standardised method for assessing facility-based emergency care in the African context. It identifies where in the maturation process a hospital or system is and what gaps exist in delivery of care, so that a comprehensive roadmap for development can be established. Although validity and feasibility testing have now occurred, reliability studies must be conducted prior to amplification across the region.

  • health systems
  • health systems evaluation
  • health services research
  • public health

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Handling editor Seye Abimbola

  • Contributors CB, LAW and EJCH conceived and designed the study. All authors participated in the refinement process. CB, JLP, LAW and EJCH drafted the manuscript. All the authors contributed to the article's revision.

  • Funding The Royal College of Emergency Medicine provided some of the funding for this project, but had no input into study design, data collection, analysis or write-up.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval University of Cape Town’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/REF number 858/2014).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.