4.5 Article

Capacity of intensive care units in Ghana

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 61, Issue -, Pages 76-81

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.10.009

Keywords

Critical care; Intensive care; ICU capacity; Global critical care; Global health; Africa

Funding

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine
  2. Office of Health Equity and Inclusion at Michigan Medicine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ghana faces a significant shortage of critical care beds that are unevenly distributed, along with a lack of adequate intensivists to staff ICUs. Addressing key bottlenecks is crucial for improving the capacity and quality of critical care delivery.
Purpose: To document the equipment, resource and bed capacity of Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in the Republic of Ghana. Materials and methods: Cross-sectional observational study of all operating ICUs in Ghana. Sixteen operating ICUs in 9 hospitals were identified and surveyed (13 adult and 3 pediatric ICUs). Results: There were a total of 113 adult and 36 pediatric ICU beds for a population of 30 million, (0.5 ICU beds per 100,000 people). The median number of staffed ICU beds and ventilators were 5 (IQR 4-6), and 4 (IQR 3-5) respectively. There were 2 pediatric and 6 adult intensivists practicing in the country. About half of the ICUs (56%) were staffed solely by non-intensivist providers. While there is adequate nursing support and availability of essential critical care medications, the current financing model for critical care delivery creates a significant barrier for most patients. Conclusion: Ghana has a significant shortage of critical care beds that are inequitably distributed across the country and a shortfall of intensivists to staff ICUs. A holistic approach that focuses on the key bottlenecks to quality improvement would be required to improve the capacity and quality of critical care delivery. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available