Pandemic influenza and pediatric intensive care

Health workforce surge capacity during the COVID‐19 pandemic and other global respiratory disease outbreaks: A systematic review of health system requirements and responses

Health system decision‐makers need comprehensive evidence to mitigate surges in the demand for human resources for health (HRH) during infectious disease outbreaks. This study aimed to assess the state of the evidence on policy and planning responses to HRH surge capacity during the coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) pandemic and other viral respiratory disease outbreaks of global significance in the 21st century. We systematically searched eight bibliographic databases to extract primary research articles published between January 2000 and June 2020 capturing temporal changes in health workforce requirements and responses surrounding respiratory virus pandemics. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses standard, 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. Five focused on COVID‐19, three on H1N1, and eight modelled a hypothetical pandemic. Investigations of different training, mobilization, and redeployment options to address pandemic‐time health system capacity were reviewed; however, few scenarios drew on observational HRH data, and heterogeneity of study approaches and outcomes generally precluded comparability across contexts. Notable evidence gaps included occupational and psychosocial factors affecting healthcare workers' absenteeism and risk of burnout, gendered considerations of HRH capacity, evaluations in low‐ and lower‐middle income countries, and policy‐actionable assessments to inform post‐pandemic recovery and sustainability of services for noncommunicable disease management.

Increases in absenteeism among health care workers in Hong Kong during influenza epidemics, 2004-2009

Background

Acute respiratory infections (ARI) are a major cause of sickness absenteeism among health care workers (HCWs) and contribute significantly to overall productivity loss particularly during influenza epidemics. The purpose of this study is to quantify the increases in absenteeism during epidemics including the 2009 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic.

Methods

We analysed administrative data to determine patterns of sickness absence among HCWs in Hong Kong from January 2004 through December 2009, and used multivariable linear regression model to estimate the excess all-cause and ARI-related sickness absenteeism rates during influenza epidemics.

Results

We found that influenza epidemics prior to the 2009 pandemic and during the 2009 pandemic were associated with 8.4 % (95 % CI: 5.6–11.2 %) and 57.7 % (95 % CI: 54.6–60.9 %) increases in overall sickness absence, and 26.5 % (95 % CI: 21.4–31.5 %) and 90.9 % (95 % CI: 85.2–96.6 %) increases in ARI-related sickness absence among HCWs in Hong Kong, respectively. Comparing different staff types, increases in overall absenteeism were highest among medical staff, during seasonal influenza epidemic periods (51.3 %, 95 % CI: 38.9–63.7 %) and the pandemic mitigation period (142.1 %, 95 % CI: 128.0–156.1 %).

Conclusions

Influenza epidemics were associated with a substantial increase in sickness absence and productivity loss among HCWs in Hong Kong, and there was a much higher rate of absenteeism during the 2009 pandemic. These findings could inform better a more proactive workforce redistribution plans to allow for sufficient surge capacity in annual epidemics, and for pandemic preparedness.

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 principles: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement

BACKGROUND

This article provides consensus suggestions for expanding critical care surge capacity and extension of critical care service capabilities in disasters or pandemics. It focuses on the principles and frameworks for expansion of intensive care services in hospitals in the developed world. A companion article addresses surge logistics, those elements that provide the capability to deliver mass critical care in disaster events. The suggestions in this article are important for all who are involved in large-scale disasters or pandemics with injured or critically ill multiple patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.

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 evidence on which to base key suggestions. 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. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process. Suggestions from the previous task force were also included for validation by the expert panel.

RESULTS

This article presents 10 suggestions pertaining to the principles that should guide surge capacity and capability planning for mass critical care, including the role of critical care in disaster planning; the surge continuum; targets of surge response; situational awareness and information sharing; mitigating the impact on critical care; planning for the care of special populations; and service deescalation/cessation (also considered as engineered failure).

CONCLUSIONS

Future reports on critical care surge should emphasize population-based outcomes as well as logistical details. Planning should be based on the projected number of critically ill or injured patients resulting from specific scenarios. This should include a consideration of ICU patient care requirements over time and must factor in resource constraints that may limit the ability to provide care. Standard ICU management forms and patient data forms to assess ICU surge capacity impacts should be created and used in disaster events.

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.

Pediatric mass critical care in a pandemic

OBJECTIVES

Previous simulation studies suggest that temporary pediatric mass critical care approaches would accommodate plausible hypothetical sudden-impact public health emergencies. However, the utility of sustained pediatric mass critical care responses in prolonged pandemics has not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to compare the ability of a typical region to serve pediatric intensive care unit needs in hypothetical pandemics, with and without mass critical care responses sufficient to triple usual pediatric intensive care unit capacity. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: The Monte Carlo simulation method was used to model responses to hypothetical pandemics on the basis of national historical evidence regarding pediatric intensive care unit admission and length of stay in pandemic and nonpandemic circumstances. Assuming all ages are affected equally, federal guidelines call for plans to serve moderate and severe pandemics requiring pediatric intensive care unit care for 457 and 5,277 infants and children per million of the population, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A moderate pandemic would exceed ordinary surge capacity on 13% of pandemic season days but would always be accommodated by mass critical care approaches. In a severe pandemic, ordinary surge methods would accommodate all the patients on only 32% of pandemic season days and would accommodate 39% of needed patient days. Mass critical care approaches would accommodate all the patients on 82% of the days and would accommodate 64% of all patient days.

CONCLUSION

Mass critical care approaches would be essential to extend care to the majority of infants and children in a severe pandemic. However, some patients needing critical care still could not be accommodated, requiring consideration of rationing.

Critically ill children with pandemic influenza (H1N1) in pediatric intensive care units in Turkey

OBJECTIVES

To outline the epidemiologic features, clinical presentation, clinical courses, and outcomes in critically ill children with pandemic influenza in pediatric intensive care units.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational, multicenter study.

SETTING

Thirteen tertiary pediatric intensive care units in Turkey.

PATIENTS

Eighty-three children with confirmed infection attributable to pandemic influenza detected by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay between November 1 and December 31, 2009 who were admitted to critical care units.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

During a 2-month period, 532 children were hospitalized with pandemic influenza and 83 (15.6%) needed critical care. For the 83 patients requiring critical care, the median age was 42 (range, 2-204) months, with 24 (28.9%) and 48 (57.8%) of patients younger than 2 and 5 yrs, respectively. Twenty (24.1%) patients had no underlying illness, but 63 (75.9%) children had an underlying chronic illness. Indications for admission to the pediatric intensive care unit were respiratory failure in 66 (79.5%), neurologic deterioration in six (7.2%), and gastrointestinal symptoms in five (6.0%) patients. Acute lung injury was diagnosed in 23 (27.7%), acute respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 34 (41%), and 51 (61.4%) patients were mechanically ventilated. Oseltamivir was used in 80 (96%) patients. The mortality rate for children with pandemic influenza 2009 was 30.1% compared to an overall mortality rate of 13.7% (p = .0016) among pediatric intensive care unit patients without pandemic influenza during the study period. Also, the mortality rate was 31.7% in patients with comorbidities and 25.0% in previously healthy children (p = .567). The cause of death was primary pandemic influenza infection in 16 (64%), nosocomial infection in four (16%), and primary disease progression in five (20%) patients. The odds ratio for respiratory failure was 14.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.85-111.11), and odds ratio for mechanical ventilation was 27.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.003-200).

CONCLUSIONS

Severe disease and high mortality rates were seen in children with pandemic influenza. Death attributable to pandemic influenza occurred in all age groups of children with or without underlying illness. Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome is associated with increased mortality, and death is frequently secondary to severe lung infection caused by pandemic influenza.