An under-developed and fragmented prehospital Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system is a major obstacle to the timely care of emergency patients. Insufficient emphasis on prehospital emergency systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) currently causes a substantial number of avoidable deaths from time-sensitive illnesses, highlighting a critical need for improved prehospital emergency care systems. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assess the prehospital emergency care services across LMICs.

This systematic review used four electronic databases, namely: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and SCOPUS, to search for published reports on prehospital emergency medical care in LMICs. Only peer-reviewed studies published in English language from January 1, 2010 through November 1, 2022 were included in the review. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Further, the protocol of this systematic review has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (Ref: CRD42022371936) and has been conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Of the 4,909 identified studies, a total of 87 studies met the inclusion criteria and were therefore included in the review. Prehospital emergency care structure, transport care, prehospital times, health outcomes, quality of information exchange, and patient satisfaction were the most reported outcomes in the considered studies.

The prehospital care system in LMICs is fragmented and uncoordinated, lacking trained medical personnel and first responders, inadequate basic materials, and substandard infrastructure.

Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center.

We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids.

The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p = 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p = 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p = 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home.

Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Despite the increases in the aged population in Japan, there are little data on geriatric patients with traumatic injuries. A prospective clinical study was carried out to evaluate the use of the emergency medical services (emergency medical services) system, mechanisms of injury, and prehospital assessment and triage of elderly victims of trauma.

From July 1996 through June 1997, a group of geriatric trauma (Group G, n = 22) and a control group of younger trauma patients (n = 173) were compared with respect to transfer method to an Emergency Center (direct or indirect), Revised Trauma Scores on the scene of the accident (revised trauma score-l) and on admission to the Emergency Center (revised trauma score-2), and outcome (survival).

The mean values for revised trauma score-l in the Control Group (Group C) were not different from those in Group G, but revised trauma score-2 of the indirect-transfer patients (indirectly transported patients) in Group G were significantly lower than were those for Group C. Group G mortality rates were significantly higher than were the control rates (p = 0.0001). The mortality rate of the indirectly transported patients subgroup was significantly lower than that of the direct transfer subgroup (directly transported patients) (30/68 vs. 5/70, p<0.0001) in the Group C, but mortality rate of the indirectly transported patients subgroup exceeded that of the directly transported patients subgroup of Group G (8/14 vs. 5/8).

The data suggest that in geriatric-age patients, direct transfer patients have a lower mortality rate than do indirect transfer patients when controlled for injury severity score. Therefore, it seems that a different set of triage criteria should be developed and implemented for geriatric-age victims with trauma-induced injuries and that those who meet these more stringent criteria should be transferred directly to a Trauma Center.