Assessment of nationwide emergency systems in Thailand, a middle‐income country setting with UHC. (4th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Suriyawongpaisal, Paibul; Atiksawedparit, Pongsakorn; Srithamrongsawad, Samrit; Thongtan, Thanita
• Is Part Of: International journal of health planning and management. Volume 34:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: e1346
• Page End: e1355
• Publication Date: 2019-04-04
• Subjects: assessment -- emergency department -- middle‐income country -- national health coverage -- systems; Health planning -- Periodicals; Health services administration -- Periodicals; Santé publique -- Planification -- Périodiques; Santé, Services de -- Administration -- Périodiques; 362.1068
• DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2783
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0749-6753

Abstract

Summary: Background: Evidence has been limited regarding broader emergency systems assessment in low‐ and middle‐income countries. The aim of the present study was to provide the empirical evidence of Thai emergency department (ED) workforce vis‐à‐vis workload on a national scale, the availability of services for selected high‐priority health burdens, and the governance obstacles in addressing the workforce management. Method: One hundred thirty public Thai EDs that provide 24‐hour emergency medical care were identified across Thailand as meeting the inclusion criteria. The mailed questionnaires were administered to collect data related to the objectives of the research study. Result: Responses were received from 91 of 130 (70%) hospitals. The median number of patients visiting hospital EDs was 51 221 per year with 32.8% considered nonurgent (ESI levels 4‐5). University hospital EDs were staffed with a higher number of ER professionals than EDs of service‐based secondary care and tertiary care hospitals under Ministry of Public Health (MOPH). Almost all hospitals expressed concerns about the deficiency of doctors and nurses especially emergency physician (EP) and emergency nurses. The percentage of hospitals reporting the availability of coronary artery catheterization (34%) and thrombolytic infusion for acute thrombotic stroke (24%) was limited. The governance obstacles to manage emergency systems were considered. Conclusion: ED staffing seems to positively correlate with workloads except university hospitals, in our study, which may suggest the influence of teaching status on the allocation of the human resource. Among the governance obstacles in ED management, a better response to nonurgent patients requires flexibility for hospitals to set financial disincentives or mobilization and management of human resources.