Investigating a Pediatric Hospital’s Response to an Inpatient Census Surge During the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic

Reverse Triage to Increase the Hospital Surge Capacity in Disaster Response

Introduction

Successful and effective management of large-scale disasters and epidemics requires pre-established systematic plans to minimize the damage and control the situation. With an increasing number of people in need of urgent medical care, hospitals must improve their response capacity, being at the forefront of responding to disasters and incidents. One way to develop the hospital capacity in disaster response is by reverse triage (RT).

Objective

The current study was conducted to investigate the role of RT to create additional hospital surge capacity in one of the major referral academic hospitals of Isfahan, Iran.

Method

This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2015 at Al-Zahra Subspecialty Hospital, Isfahan, Iran. The ten most common diseases leading to hospitalization in each ward of the hospital in 2014 were reviewed and, based on the prevalence, sorted and listed. Academic instructions for making a decision and possibility of early discharge was written and approved by an expert panel. On a day that was not set previously, the pre-selected in-charge person of each department was asked to run the RT following the instructions, and the number and percentage of those who were eligible for discharge via RT were determined.

Results

The total BOR in Al-Zahra Hospital in 2014 was about 80%, so it was estimated that almost 140 out of 700 beds are vacant. The results showed that by using RT, 108 (20%) hospitalized cases could be discharged, and considering the bed occupancy rate of about 80% and 140 vacant beds, a total of 248 beds could be provided following RT.

Conclusion

Running RT in 41 wards and units of Isfahan Al-Zahra Hospital, on average, added 108 beds to the hospital capacity. This increment is not the same in all wards, as the role of intensive care units in RT for surge capacity is insignificant.

Developments in Surge Research Priorities: A Systematic Review of the Literature Following the Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, 2007-2015

OBJECTIVES

In 2006, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) published a special issue summarizing the proceedings of the AEM consensus conference on the "Science of Surge." One major goal of the conference was to establish research priorities in the field of "disasters" surge. For this review, we wished to determine the progress toward the conference's identified research priorities: 1) defining criteria and methods for allocation of scarce resources, 2) identifying effective triage protocols, 3) determining decision-makers and means to evaluate response efficacy, 4) developing communication and information sharing strategies, and 5) identifying methods for evaluating workforce needs.

METHODS

Specific criteria were developed in conjunction with library search experts. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were queried for peer-reviewed articles from 2007 to 2015 addressing scientific advances related to the above five research priorities identified by AEM consensus conference. Abstracts and foreign language articles were excluded. Only articles with quantitative data on predefined outcomes were included; consensus panel recommendations on the above priorities were also included for the purposes of this review. Included study designs were randomized controlled trials, prospective, retrospective, qualitative (consensus panel), observational, cohort, case-control, or controlled before-and-after studies. Quality assessment was performed using a standardized tool for quantitative studies.

RESULTS

Of the 2,484 unique articles identified by the search strategy, 313 articles appeared to be related to disaster surge. Following detailed text review, 50 articles with quantitative data and 11 concept papers (consensus conference recommendations) addressed at least one AEM consensus conference surge research priority. Outcomes included validation of the benchmark of 500 beds/million of population for disaster surge capacity, effectiveness of simulation- and Internet-based tools for forecasting of hospital and regional demand during disasters, effectiveness of reverse triage approaches, development of new disaster surge metrics, validation of mass critical care approaches (altered standards of care), use of telemedicine, and predictions of optimal hospital staffing levels for disaster surge events. Simulation tools appeared to provide some of the highest quality research.

CONCLUSION

Disaster simulation studies have arguably revolutionized the study of disaster surge in the intervening years since the 2006 AEM Science of Surge conference, helping to validate some previously known disaster surge benchmarks and to generate new surge metrics. Use of reverse triage approaches and altered standards of care, as well as Internet-based tools such as Google Flu Trends, have also proven effective. However, there remains significant work to be done toward standardizing research methodologies and outcomes, as well as validating disaster surge metrics.

Surge capacity logistics: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Successful management of a pandemic or disaster requires implementation of preexisting plans to minimize loss of life and maintain control. Managing the expected surges in intensive care capacity requires strategic planning from a systems perspective and includes focused intensive care abilities and requirements as well as all individuals and organizations involved in hospital and regional planning. The suggestions in this article are important for all involved in a large-scale disaster or pandemic, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. Specifically, this article focuses on surge logistics-those elements that provide the capability to deliver mass critical care.

METHODS

The Surge Capacity topic panel developed 23 key questions focused on the following domains: systems issues; equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staffing; and informatics. Literature searches were conducted to identify studies upon which evidence-based recommendations could be made. The results were reviewed for relevance to the topic, and the articles were screened by two topic editors for placement within one of the surge domains noted previously. Most reports were small scale, were observational, or used flawed modeling; hence, the level of evidence on which to base recommendations was poor and did not permit the development of evidence-based recommendations. The Surge Capacity topic panel subsequently followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology to develop suggestion based on expert opinion using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

This article presents 22 suggestions pertaining to surge capacity mass critical care, including requirements for equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staff preparation and organization; methods of mitigating overwhelming patient loads; the role of deployable critical care services; and the use of transportation assets to support the surge response.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care response to a disaster relies on careful planning for staff and resource augmentation and involves many agencies. Maximizing the use of regional resources, including staff, equipment, and supplies, extends critical care capabilities. Regional coalitions should be established to facilitate agreements, outline operational plans, and coordinate hospital efforts to achieve predetermined goals. Specialized physician oversight is necessary and if not available on site, may be provided through remote consultation. Triage by experienced providers, reverse triage, and service deescalation may be used to minimize ICU resource consumption. During a temporary loss of infrastructure or overwhelmed hospital resources, deployable critical care services should be considered.

Pediatric triage and allocation of critical care resources during disaster: Northwest provider opinion

INTRODUCTION

Following Hurricane Katrina and the 2009 H1N1 epidemic, pediatric critical care clinicians recognized the urgent need for a standardized pediatric triage/allocation system. This study collected regional provider opinion on issues of care allocation and pediatric triage in a disaster/pandemic setting.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional survey of United States (US) health care providers and public health workers who demonstrated interest in critical care and/or disaster care medicine by attending a Northwest regional pediatric critical care symposium on disaster preparation, held in 2012 at Seattle Children's Hospital in Seattle, Washington (USA). The survey employed an electronic audience response system and included demographic, ethical, and logistical questions. Differences in opinions between respondents grouped by professions and work locations were evaluated using a chi-square test.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve (97%) of 116 total attendees responded to at least one question; however, four of these responders failed to answer every question. Sixty-two (55%) responders were nurses, 29 (26%) physicians, and 21 (19%) other occupations. Fifty-five (51%) responders worked in pediatric hospitals vs 53 (49%) in other locations. Sixty-three (58%) of 108 successful responses prioritized children predicted to have a good neuro-cognitive outcome. Seventy-one (68%) agreed that no pediatric age group should be prioritized. Twenty-two (43%) of providers working in non-pediatric hospital locations preferred a triage system based on an objective score alone vs 14 (26%) of those in pediatric hospitals (P = .038).

Systematic review of strategies to manage and allocate scarce resources during mass casualty events

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Efficient management and allocation of scarce medical resources can improve outcomes for victims of mass casualty events. However, the effectiveness of specific strategies has never been systematically reviewed. We analyze published evidence on strategies to optimize the management and allocation of scarce resources across a wide range of mass casualty event contexts and study designs.

METHODS

Our literature search included MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1990 through late 2011. We also searched the gray literature, using the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report and key Web sites. We included both English- and foreign-language articles. We included studies that evaluated strategies used in actual mass casualty events or tested through drills, exercises, or computer simulations. We excluded studies that lacked a comparison group or did not report quantitative outcomes. Data extraction, quality assessment, and strength of evidence ratings were conducted by a single researcher and reviewed by a second; discrepancies were reconciled by the 2 reviewers. Because of heterogeneity in outcome measures, we qualitatively synthesized findings within categories of strategies.

RESULTS

From 5,716 potentially relevant citations, 74 studies met inclusion criteria. Strategies included reducing demand for health care services (18 studies), optimizing use of existing resources (50), augmenting existing resources (5), implementing crisis standards of care (5), and multiple categories (4). The evidence was sufficient to form conclusions on 2 strategies, although the strength of evidence was rated as low. First, as a strategy to reduce demand for health care services, points of dispensing can be used to efficiently distribute biological countermeasures after a bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic, and their organization influences speed of distribution. Second, as a strategy to optimize use of existing resources, commonly used field triage systems do not perform consistently during actual mass casualty events. The number of high-quality studies addressing other strategies was insufficient to support conclusions about their effectiveness because of differences in study context, comparison groups, and outcome measures. Our literature search may have missed key resource management and allocation strategies because of their extreme heterogeneity. Interrater reliability was not assessed for quality assessments or strength of evidence ratings. Publication bias is likely, given the large number of studies reporting positive findings.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.

Health systems' "surge capacity": state of the art and priorities for future research

CONTEXT

Over the past decade, a number of high-impact natural hazard events, together with the increased recognition of pandemic risks, have intensified interest in health systems' ability to prepare for, and cope with, "surges" (sudden large-scale escalations) in treatment needs. In this article, we identify key concepts and components associated with this emerging research theme. We consider the requirements for a standardized conceptual framework for future research capable of informing policy to reduce the morbidity and mortality impacts of such incidents. Here our objective is to appraise the consistency and utility of existing conceptualizations of health systems' surge capacity and their components, with a view to standardizing concepts and measurements to enable future research to generate a cumulative knowledge base for policy and practice.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on concepts of health systems' surge capacity, with a narrative summary of key concepts relevant to public health.

FINDINGS

The academic literature on surge capacity demonstrates considerable variation in its conceptualization, terms, definitions, and applications. This, together with an absence of detailed and comparable data, has hampered efforts to develop standardized conceptual models, measurements, and metrics. Some degree of consensus is evident for the components of surge capacity, but more work is needed to integrate them. The overwhelming concentration in the United States complicates the generalizability of existing approaches and findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of surge capacity is a useful addition to the study of health systems' disaster and/or pandemic planning, mitigation, and response, and it has far-reaching policy implications. Even though research in this area has grown quickly, it has yet to fulfill its potential to generate knowledge to inform policy. Work is needed to generate robust conceptual and analytical frameworks, along with innovations in data collection and methodological approaches that enhance health systems' readiness for, and response to, unpredictable high-consequence surges in demand.