DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions (FGD) informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). FGDs were conducted in English, audioconferencing/videoconferencing was recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using an inductive and deductive approach. Participants suggested specific elements to be measured within three main 'pillars' of disease conditions proposed by the research team of the tool being developed (cardiovascular, trauma and perinatal emergencies).
SETTING: We explored the perspectives of medical directors in six low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in South and SE Asia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16 participants were interviewed (1 Vietnam, 4 Philippines, 4 Thailand, 5 Malaysia, 1 Indonesia and 1 Pakistan) as a part of 4 focus groups.
RESULTS: Themes identified within the four CFIR constructs included: (1) Intervention characteristics: importance of developing an contextually specific tool, need for generalisability, trialling in one geographical area or with one pillar before expanding; (2) Inner setting: data transfer barriers, workforce shortages; (3) Outer setting: underdevelopment of EMS nationally; need for further EMS system development prior to implementing a tool and (4) Individual characteristics: lack of buy-in by prehospital personnel. Elements proposed by participants included both process and outcome measures.
CONCLUSIONS: Through the CFIR framework, we identified several themes which can provide a basis for codeveloping a PEC-SET for LMICs with local stakeholders. This work may inform development of quality improvement tools in LMIC PEC systems.
METHODS: A 4-stage modified Delphi consensus method was used to engage 32 PEC experts from 12 Asian countries. Participants voted on 32 elements identified from a prior scoping review, focus group discussions, and survey. Each round of voting was conducted through an anonymous, web-based application and followed by face-to-face group discussions. The first two rounds aimed to answer, "Is the element important and feasible in a low resource setting?" The last two stages aimed to answer "Should this element be prioritized as core in the tool?" A thematic analysis of the recorded and transcribed discussions was used to identify participants' rationale for prioritization.
RESULTS: After four rounds of voting, 12 elements were identified as core elements: 1) dispatch assisted instructions, 2) protocols for screening, triage and destination, (3) medical direction, 4) standardized training programs, 5) minimum ambulance standards, 6) operational metrics, 7) quality assurance, 8) operational safety protools, 9) essential patient care documentation, 10) medical records management, 11) layperson awareness and education and 12) universal access emergency number. However, the participants decided to include all 32 elements in the tool grouped into broader categories by percent agreement for a tiered approach for early, intermediate, and advanced PEC systems. Rationales for prioritization included a need for focus on basic infrastructure and building resilience in resource-stretched systems.
CONCLUSIONS: Through a Delphi consensus process, stakeholders identified core elements for PEC systems in low resource settings. These findings will inform the development of a tool for quality assurance and monitoring in low resource settings in South and Southeast Asian countries.