Stewart, Barclay T.

Background Strengthening emergency care systems could reduce death and disability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet many struggle to provide timely, high-quality care. LMICs also face growing risks from climate-related shocks and mass casualty events. This study identifies unmet emergency care needs in Nepal—one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries—using high-resolution geospatial data to estimate socioeconomic and climate-related inequalities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional geospatial analysis using data from the 2022 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), the 2021 DHS Service Provision Assessment and publicly available climate vulnerability data. Government hospitals were classified into three emergency care levels using World Health Organzation criteria: A (basic 24-hour services), B (A plus resuscitative capabilities) and C (B plus ≥50 beds and a surgeon). Household location and injury data were obtained from the DHS. Accessibility was defined as the proportion of the population within 1-hour and 2-hour travel times, estimated using AccessMod 5.8, incorporating road networks, rivers, land cover and elevation. Findings Most public hospitals (77.7%) met Level A criteria but only 49.3% met Level B and 10.8% met Level C. Nationally, 78.7% of households had 1-hour access to Level A care, 71.8% to Level B and 44.6% to Level C. Adjusted logistic regression showed rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable households had significantly lower 1-hour access compared with urban households, rural households had lower odds of access: Level A OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.37), Level B OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.36), Level C OR: 0.56 (95%CI 0.51 to 0.61). Households in high climate vulnerability areas had reduced access across all levels. Conclusions Substantial gaps and inequities in timely access to high-quality emergency care exist in Nepal. Rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable populations experience markedly lower access. Targeted, decentralised strengthening of emergency care capacity is essential both in Nepal and in other LMICs facing similar constraints.

AbstractBackgroundGlobally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) to identify patterns of deficits and provide useful targets for advocacy and intervention.MethodsA systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar identified reports that documented anesthesia care capacity from LMICs. When multiple assessments from one country were identified, only the study with the most facilities assessed was included. Patterns of availability or deficit were described.ResultsWe identified 22 LMICs (15 low‐ and 8 middle‐income countries) with anesthesia care capacity assessments (614 facilities assessed). Anesthesia care resources were often unavailable, including relatively low‐cost ones (e.g., oxygen and airway supplies). Capacity varied markedly between and within countries, regardless of the national income. The availability of fundamental resources for safe anesthesia, such as airway supplies and functional pulse oximeters, was often not reported (72 and 36 % of hospitals assessed, respectively). Anesthesia machines and the capability to perform general anesthesia were unavailable in 43 % (132/307 hospitals) and 56 % (202/361) of hospitals, respectively.ConclusionWe identified a pattern of critical deficiencies in anesthesia care capacity in LMICs, including some low‐cost, high‐value added resources. The global health community should advocate for improvements in anesthesia care capacity and the potential benefits of doing so to health system planners. In addition, better quality data on anesthesia care capacity can improve advocacy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of changes over time and the impact of capacity improvement interventions.