Essential Emergency and Critical Care – a consensus among global clinical experts

Phase One

An online, three-round modified Delphi process was conducted in November and December 2020. The Delphi method uses anonymous responses from an expert panel to iteratively posed questions and controlled feedback to reach consensus on the topic of interest [26]. A Delphi process was chosen for this study as EECC is new, its content has not been previously specified and a large group of diverse experts was required.

To be part of the panel, experts needed to have clinical experience of caring for critically ill patients. To ensure the involvement of a diverse range of experts, it was decided that at least 50% of the invitations to participate in the panel should be sent to experts with substantial experience of working in low- and middle-income countries, and there should be a balance between clinical experience (work in general wards, emergency units, intensive care units); specialty (paediatrics, obstetrics, medicine, surgery, intensive care, anaesthesia and emergency care); profession (doctors, nurses, other health professionals); location, and gender. A list of potential participants was made from a mapping of stakeholders, the literature across all acute medical specialties, the researchers’ networks and additional purposive and snowball sampling for under-represented groups. Additionally, a link to a screening survey was sent to global professional networks, specialist societies and on social media to identify further potential participants. A total of 895 experts were invited to participate, and those who accepted provided written informed consent.

EECC consists of clinical processes of care. To enable rating by the Delphi panel, clinical processes were disassembled into individual treatments & actions (T&A). The T&A concern the identification of critical illness; care of critical illness, and the diagnosis-specific care of critically ill COVID-19 patients. To be included, all T&A were required to meet two a-priori defined criteria: effectiveness* and feasibility*. Additionally, universality* was required for the identification and care of critical illness and relevance* was required for the diagnosis-specific care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A draft list of potential T&A was developed based on clinical guidelines and tools from related specialties [27-38] and aligned with the WHO/ICRC’s Basic Emergency Care [39]. The draft list was revised by specialist reviewers – a group of senior clinicians, researchers, and policy makers, with expertise in paediatrics, medicine, emergency medicine, anaesthesia and intensive care, critical care nursing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and surgery.

Three Delphi rounds were deemed sufficient to address the aim while avoiding attrition and poor response rates. A four-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) with a ‘do-not know’ option was used for the panel to rate their opinion about the inclusion of each T&A in EECC [40-42]. Consensus was achieved when more than 90% of respondents selected “agree” or “strongly agree”, excluding “don’t know” responses. The experts were able to provide free-text comments, which were analysed to identify appropriate, relevant changes to the wording of T&A for clarity of understanding, and to identify newly proposed T&A. After the first round, newly proposed T&A that fulfilled the EECC criteria for potential inclusion were revised after input from the specialist reviewers and included for assessment by the panel. T&A that did not reach consensus in the previous round were presented for re-assessment in rounds two and three, together with a visual representation of the spread of previous responses.

As the Delphi panel was diverse, it was considered that there may be different opinions about the inclusion of T&As between experts with particular a-priori defined characteristics. These subgroups of experts were those with work experience in a low-income country or not; those who are doctors or not; those with clinical experience in emergency care and those without; and those with clinical experience in intensive care and those without. The levels of agreement in each subgroup were assessed and presented for all the T&As that reached consensus.

Phase Two

After the Delphi, slight adjustments were made to the wording of the T&A that had reached consensus to ensure language consistency. The T&A were reassembled back into clinical processes to increase overall coherence and feasibility of the EECC package, with the goal of user-friendliness for health system implementation and quality improvement work. The adjustments were done in an iterative process with the same specialist reviewers as in Phase One to ensure relevance for all acute medical specialties. The final package of clinical processes was organised into those relevant for identification, for care, and general processes.

Phase Three

A provisional list of hospital readiness requirements for the provision of the clinical processes were developed using existing WHO tools, guidelines for related specialties, facility preparedness lists [29, 32, 34, 35, 37-39, 43, 44] and the experience and knowledge of the study team. The specialist reviewers provided iterative input into the provisional list, approving suggested items, adding relevant items from their clinical specialties, and suggesting modifications. Based on previous work and following consultation with health economists and procurement experts, the final list of requirements was agreed and arranged into eight categories: equipment, consumables, drugs, human resources, training, routines, guidelines, and infrastructure.

Phase One

Of the 895 invited experts, 269 participated in the first round of the Delphi when the majority of the decisions were made (30% response rate). In Round Two, 228 experts participated (85% of those in Round One) and Round Three included 194 experts (85% of those in Round Two). The panel comprised experts from diverse resource settings, clinical settings, specialties, and professions (Table 1). The panel included experts from 59 countries (Figure 2) and 38% were female.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Expert panel locations.

The locations of the expert panel in the Delphi Round One

Of the 57 T&A for EECC in Round One, consensus was reached for 49. In Round Two, 29 newly proposed T&A were added to the eight remaining from Round One, of which two had been re-worded for clarity. Out of these 37, consensus was reached for 17. The remaining 20, of which another two had been re-worded for clarity, were included in Round Three. Consensus was reached for nine of the final 20 T&A. In total, consensus was reached for 75 out of 86 proposed T&A, including 54 of the original 57. (Supplementary table 1)

Of the seven T&A for the essential diagnosis-specific care of critically ill COVID-19 in Round One, all reached consensus for inclusion. In Round Two, two newly proposed T&A were added. Neither of these reached consensus in Round Two or Round Three.

Analyses of participant sub-groups did not reveal substantial divergence from the overall results. For the T&A that reached 90% agreement in the panel, agreement was not below 80% in any subgroup. (Supplementary tables 2-4)

Phase Two and Three

After the Delphi, the T&A that had reached consensus were reassembled into a final user-friendly and feasible package of EECC containing 40 clinical processes – 30 identification and care processes and 10 general processes. (Panel 1) All T&A for the care of critical illness were included, with some rewording and reordering. Eleven T&A for the identification of critical illness were not included, so that the package could be feasible for triage in all hospitals, and were added as an addendum (outside the remit of EECC), in order to underscore their importance in settings where staff have sufficient time and expertise.

The list of hospital readiness requirements for EECC contained 67 items, (fourteen for identification and 53 for essential care). (Panel 2)

The essential diagnosis-specific care of critically ill COVID-19 patients consisted of an additional seven clinical processes and nine hospital readiness requirements. (Panel 3)

The EECC approach

EECC is an approach that supports priority-setting in health systems. In this regard, it has parallels to the approaches used in the WHO’s Essential Medicines List [37], Interagency Integrated Triage Tool [29], Emergency Triage and Treatment for Children [32] and Universal Health Coverage [36]. EECC emphasises the identification and care of the critically ill, and the provision of the life-saving supportive care that is of low cost and of low complexity [25]. EECC can be seen as a unifying concept for such aspects of patient management found in WHO and specialist guidelines, triage, early warning systems and rapid response teams [28, 29, 39, 46, 47]. To maintain focus on life-saving supportive care and to be useful across all specialties, EECC does not include the definitive care of the underlying diagnoses. Instead, EECC is intended to complement speciality-based care and existing guidelines and does not aim to include all the care a patient needs – as well as EECC, patients should receive diagnostics, definitive and symptomatic care of their condition, additional nursing care, and if available, higher levels of emergency and critical care. It seeks to bridge the quality gap that is commonly found between the current care of critical illness and best-practice guidelines [12, 48, 49]. To ensure feasibility in settings with restricted human resources, EECC is designed to enable task-sharing between health professionals [50]. It should be noted that not all the EECC clinical processes will be needed in the care of every critically ill patient – they should be seen as essential “tools in the tool-box” for health workers to use when required. To operationalise the EECC approach, it is intended that the content specified here is used to develop tools for quality monitoring, teaching and integration into other guidelines and recommendations.

EECC complements the current healthcare organisation

The basic clinical processes specified in EECC have been overlooked in healthcare [11, 13-15, 18, 20, 51, 52] In UK hospitals, half of patients received substandard basic vital organ support prior to intensive care and 31% of preventable deaths were associated with absent clinical monitoring [13, 14]. In Malawi, 89% of adult hypoxic patients, and 75% of children dying from pneumonia in hospital did not receive oxygen [17, 18]. The usual organisational set-up of health services may be one underlying reason for this. Specialist units with a primary function of delivering the definitive management for one disease group may under-estimate the effort needed to maintain core processes and competences in the supportive management of critically ill patients. Innovative and specialised treatments and technologies may become preferred to those that are basic and long-standing [53]. By targeting a feasible, lowest baseline quality for critically ill patients throughout hospital settings, EECC provides a complimentary approach to the current organisation that safeguards the provision of basic life-saving actions, enhancing the impact of hospital care for all acute conditions.

EECC in the COVID-19 pandemic

EECC has added importance in a situation causing a substantial amount of severe disease and the Delphi panel agreed that EECC should be part of the care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. In addition, the agreed essential diagnostic-specific care for COVID-19 can assist in decisions about the priorities of care when the pandemic threatens to overwhelm available resources. All of the COVID-19 specific processes are well established and are included in the WHO COVID-19 clinical management guidance [30]. The WHO guidance, and others [54], additionally include recommendations for advanced critical care (such as mechanical ventilation, vasopressors and extracorporeal oxygenation), which may be difficult to rapidly scale-up in settings of low resources. Advanced critical care can be necessary to save the lives of some patients, but has a high cost per recovery and risks diverting scarce resources to a few individuals [55-60]. Fortunately the focus has shifted in the global pandemic response from advanced critical care towards securing basic oxygen delivery systems [61, 62] underscored by statements from the WHO and other partners [63, 64]. The impact of this shift, in and beyond the pandemic, could be even greater if the necessary processes for the effective use of oxygen and other care specified in EECC were included in the scale-up.

Strengths and limitations

Our use of a consensus method with a large expert panel from diverse clinical and resource settings, specialties, and geographical locations gives the specified content legitimacy. The high response rate for this type of study during an ongoing pandemic illustrates the interest that experts had in the project’s aims. The high level of consensus (>90%) for the included clinical processes promotes confidence in the final package. However, the Delphi method does have limitations. It is expert-opinion based and is limited by the make-up of the panel. Only English language speakers were included, experts were not included from all countries, and the expedited timeline of the project due to the need for results that could impact the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic may have excluded experts who could have provided additional input. The initial content presented to the panel was aligned with WHO initiatives [39], and developed by a diverse specialist team, but the possibility remains that alternative methods would have led to a different output. The study did not address the underlying evidence-base for the included clinical processes, the impact, or the potential opportunity costs of increasing the coverage of EECC in hospitals – such system-wide effects warrant careful evaluation during EECC implementation. It should be noted that, while policy makers were involved throughout the process, the EECC content has not been ratified by the WHO or governmental ministries of health – the method has been primarily scientific. The findings should be seen as the first version of the EECC content, as recommended by global clinicians and researchers, one that could be incorporated into WHO and other global and national programmes and that should subsequently be improved and updated as new knowledge arises.

Implications

Implementation of EECC could be an effective strategy as part of the current calls to save lives through improved quality of care in health systems [65] – a “low-hanging fruit”. Critically ill patients have high mortality rates in all hospital settings, especially where trained staff or resources are limited, and even small improvements in outcomes would have a large impact. EECC has a vital role in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, for the care of the surge of critically ill patients and for optimising the impact of the efforts to scale-up oxygen. Policy makers at global, national and regional levels aiming to reduce preventable deaths should focus on improved coverage of EECC and inclusion of EECC as part of universal health coverage[36].