Impacts and Lessons Learned of the First Three COVID-19 Waves on Cross-Border Collaboration in the Field of Emergency Medical Services and Interhospital Transports in the Euregio-Meuse-Rhine: A Qualitative Review of Expert Opinions

Strengthening the WHO Emergency Care Systems Framework: insights from an integrated, patient-centered approach in the Copenhagen Emergency Medical Services system-a qualitative system analysis

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization Emergency Care Systems Framework (WHO ECSF) was designed to offer guidance in establishing and developing effective Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems. However, evolving disease patterns, changing community needs, and a rising demand for emergency care services, highlight the need for more integrated and patient-centered EMS systems. This evolution should be mirrored in the WHO ECSF. Hence, this study explores system components of the Copenhagen (CPH) EMS that may enhance the WHO ECSF´s emphasis on integrated and patient-centered care.

METHODS

A qualitative case study was conducted from April through June 2021, including (i) semi-structured interviews with researchers and professionals at the CPH EMS and (ii) a scoping literature review using PubMed, Google Scholar, expert recommendations and snowballing.

RESULTS

Thirteen expert interviews and 35 records were analyzed, revealing key integrated care components within the CPH EMS. These include education and citizen participation programs, early triaging, differentiated care pathways coordinated with primary care and out-of-hours services, and specialized mobile care units complementing "traditional" ambulance services. Technology supports integrated and patient-centered care by facilitating early differentiation of care, efficient dispatching, and communication. Data-driven approaches were fostered through technology-aided data collection, supporting research, quality improvement, and patient safety. The identified components were mapped within the WHO ECSF´s four domains: scene, transport, facility, and cross-cutting elements. Due to the prehospital focus of the CPH EMS, limited data was available for the "facility" site.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPH EMS demonstrates an integrated, patient-centered systems approach that emphasizes seamless coordination along the patient care pathway, bridging EMS with broader health and social systems. Research-informed initiatives and intelligent technology solutions underscore the potential for enhancing the WHO ECSF. These findings highlight the importance of continued system integration and a holistic health perspective, including in emergency settings. Further research is needed to assess the transferability of these components across diverse global contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Close to the border-Resilience in healthcare in a European border region: Findings of a needs analysis

OBJECTIVES

Promoting resilience, the ability to withstand and overcome challenging situations, is crucial for maintaining the performance of healthcare systems. Unique challenges faced by healthcare facilities in border regions render them particularly vulnerable during crises, emphasizing the need to promote resilience in these areas. The current study evaluated the state and needs of resilience in healthcare professionals in a representative European border region.

METHODS

All hospitals and emergency medical care services in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands) were approached to participate via an online-survey. Behavioral data on psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4), work-related stressors, individual resilience (Brief Resilience Scale, Resilience at Work scale), and organizational resilience (Benchmark Resilience Tool-short) were collected.

RESULTS

2233 participants initiated the survey with 500 responses included in the analysis. 46% of the participants indicated clinically significant psychological distress. Most challenging stressors were staff availability, available time, and workload. On average, individual resilience was in the normal range, yet 15.6% showed below average resilience. At the organizational level, healthcare institutions can particularly enhance resilience in the domains of Internal resources, Situation Awareness, and Unity of purpose. Compared to their neighbor countries, German healthcare professionals indicated higher levels of depressive symptoms, were more burdened by work-related stressors, and reported lower levels of organizational resilience.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlight that healthcare institutions not only need to promote the resilience of the individual employee particularly in border regions, healthcare institutions, must also act to be better prepared for potential threats and crises while considering each country's unique needs.

Cross-border mobility in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: impact of COVID-19 border restrictions on everyday activities and visiting social network members

Introduction

Cross-border mobility (CBM) to visit social network members or for everyday activities is an important part of daily life for citizens in border regions, including the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR: neighboring regions from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany). We assessed changes in CBM during the COVID-19 pandemic and how participants experienced border restrictions.

Methods

Impact of COVID-19 on the EMR' is a longitudinal study using comparative cross-border data collection. In 2021, a random sample of the EMR-population was invited for participation in online surveys to assess current and pre-pandemic CBM. Changes in CBM, experience of border restrictions, and associated factors were analyzed using multinomial and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Results

Pre-pandemic, 82% of all 3,543 participants reported any CBM: 31% for social contacts and 79% for everyday activities. Among these, 26% decreased social CBM and 35% decreased CBM for everyday activities by autumn 2021. Negative experience of border restrictions was reported by 45% of participants with pre-pandemic CBM, and was higher (p < 0.05) in Dutch participants (compared to Belgian; aOR= 1.4), cross-border [work] commuters (aOR= 2.2), participants with cross-border social networks of friends, family or acquaintances (aOR= 1.3), and those finding the measures 'limit group size' (aOR= 1.5) and 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 2.0) difficult to adhere to and finding 'minimalize travel' (aOR= 1.6) useless.

Discussion

CBM for social contacts and everyday activities was substantial in EMR-citizens, but decreased during the pandemic. Border restrictions were valued as negative by a considerable portion of EMR-citizens, especially when having family or friends across the border. When designing future pandemic control strategies, policy makers should account for the negative impact of CBM restrictions on their citizens.

Hub and Spoke: Next level in regional networks for infection prevention

The threat of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are real and increasing every day. They affect not only healthcare systems but also communities, causing economic and public health concerns. Governments must take action to tackle AMR and prevent the spread of MDROs and regional hubs have a critical role to play in achieving this outcome. Furthermore, bacteria have no borders, consequently, cooperation networks should be extended between countries as a crucial strategy for achieving the success of infection control. Euregions, which are a specific form of cooperation between local authorities of two or more bordering European countries, can help solve common problems and improve the lives of people living on both sides of the border. Regional collaboration strategies can enhance infection control and build resilience against antimicrobial resistance. This review identifies risk factors and the correct approaches to infection prevention and control, including education and awareness programs for healthcare professionals, appropriate prescribing practices, and infection prevention control measures. These measures can help reduce the incidence of antimicrobial resistance in the region and save lives. It is therefore essential to take concrete actions and foster the creation of more effective regional and cross-border centers to ensure the success of infection control policies and the management of healthcare-associated infections. This work sheds light on the issue of MDRO infections within healthcare settings, while also acknowledging the crucial role of the One Health concept in understanding the broader context of these infections. By recognizing the interdependence of human and animal health and the environment, we can take constructive steps toward mitigating the risks of these infections and promoting better health outcomes for all.

Differences in non-positive intention to accept the COVID-19 booster vaccine between three countries in the cross-border region Meuse-Rhine Euroregion: The Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany

COVID-19 booster vaccination has shown to add to the protection against infection with SARS-CoV2 and subsequent severe disease. This longitudinal cross-border study aimed to identify factors associated with COVID-19 booster vaccine intentions in an initially vaccinated adult population living in the Meuse-Rhine Euroregion (EMR; including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany) and differences between countries. Data collection took place in autumn of 2021 and consisted of online questionnaires sent to a random sample of the population based on governmental registries. Data from 3,319 fully and partially vaccinated adults were used to examine determinants of non-positive intention for a booster vaccination (i.e., uncertain or do not want), using multivariable logistic regression analyses weighted by age group, sex, and country. Compared to German residents, Dutch residents (OR = 2.4) and Belgian residents (OR = 1.4) were more likely to be uncertain or not want to receive a booster vaccine in September-October 2021. Factors independently associated with non-positive intention were female sex (OR = 1.6), absence of comorbidities (OR = 1.3), time since last vaccination less than 3 months ago for those fully vaccinated (OR = 1.6), being partially vaccinated (OR = 3.6), a negative experience with communication of COVID-19 measures (OR = 2.2), and regarding measures as ineffective (OR = 1.1). Results indicate that booster vaccine intentions differ between countries in the cross border Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. Non-positive intention for the booster vaccine is prevalent in all three countries of the EMR, but to a different extent, as shown in this study. Cross-border collaboration and sharing information and knowledge about vaccination strategies could play a role in limiting the impact of COVID-19.