Objective: Evaluate the change in participant emergency care knowledge and skill confidence after implementation of the WHO-International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Basic Emergency Care (BEC) course.

Design: Pretest/post-test quasi-experimental study.

Setting: Mechnikov Hospital in Dnipro, Ukraine.

Participants: Seventy-nine participants engaged in the course, of whom 50 (63.3%) completed all assessment tools. The course was open to healthcare providers of any level who assess and treat emergency conditions as part of their practice. The most common participant profession was resident physician (24%), followed by health educator (18%) and prehospital provider (14%).

Interventions: The 5-day WHO-ICRC BEC course.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Change in pre-course and post-course knowledge and skill confidence assessments. Open-ended written feedback was collected upon course completion and analysed for common themes.

Results: Participant knowledge assessment scores improved from 19 (IQR 15–20) to 22 (IQR 19–23) on a 25-point scale (p<0.001). Participant skill confidence self-assessment scores improved from 2.5 (IQR 2.1–2.8) to 2.9 (IQR 2.5–3.3) on a 4-point scale (p<0.001). The most common positive feedback themes were high-quality teaching and useful skill sessions. The most common constructive feedback themes were translation challenges and request for additional skill session time.

Conclusions: This first implementation of the WHO-ICRC BEC course for front-line healthcare providers in Ukraine was successful and well received by participants. This is also the first report of a BEC implementation outside of Africa and suggests that the course is also effective in the European context, particularly in humanitarian crisis and conflict settings. Future research should evaluate long-term knowledge retention and the impact on patient outcomes. Further iterations should emphasise local language translation and consider expanding clinical skills sessions.

Objective: To identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research and review articles in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

Methods: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review team to identify those that met our criteria of original research or review articles in the domains of Disaster and Humanitarian Response, Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings, and Emergency Medicine Development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization.

Results: The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year’s search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted original research, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings again constituted most of the articles in this year’s review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques.

Conclusions: The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to Disaster and Humanitarian Response. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Objective: To identify, screen, highlight, review, and summarize some of the most rigorously conducted and impactful original research and review articles in global emergency medicine (EM) published in 2020 in the peer-reviewed and gray literature.

Methods: A broad systematic search of peer-reviewed publications related to global EM indexed on PubMed and in the gray literature was conducted. The titles and abstracts of the articles on this list were screened by members of the Global Emergency Medicine Literature Review team to identify those that met our criteria of original research or review articles in the domains of Disaster and Humanitarian Response, Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings, and Emergency Medicine Development. Those articles that met these screening criteria were then scored using one of three scoring templates appropriate to the article type. Those articles that scored in the top 5% then underwent in-depth narrative summarization.

Results: The 2020 GEMLR search initially identified 35,970 articles, more than 50% more than last year’s search. From these, 364 were scored based on their full text. Nearly three-fourths of the scored articles constituted original research, of which nearly three-fourths employed quantitative research methods. Nearly 10% of the articles identified this year were directly related to COVID-19. Research involving Emergency Care in Resource-Limited Settings again constituted most of the articles in this year’s review, accounting for more than 60% of the literature scored. A total of 20 articles underwent in-depth narrative critiques.

Conclusions: The number of studies relevant to global EM identified by our search was very similar to last year. Revisions to our methodology to identify a broader range of research were successful in identifying more qualitative research and studies related to Disaster and Humanitarian Response. The number of COVID-19-related articles is likely to continue to increase in subsequent years.

Emergency care systems provide timely and relevant care to the acutely ill and injured. Published commentaries have characterised deficiencies in the Nigerian emergency care system and offered potential solutions but have not included the perspectives of the Nigerian public. A more inclusive approach that includes feedback from the public may help improve the Nigerian emergency care system through better understanding of the needs, values and expectations of the community.

The participants in this study identified shortcomings and opportunities to improve prehospital care, hospital care and health system governance. The results of this study may help healthcare professionals, policy makers and community leaders identify gaps in the emergency care system and offer solutions in harmony with the needs, values and expectations of the community. If successful, these community-informed interventions may serve as a model to improve emergency care systems throughout Africa.