Multi-resource allocation and care sequence assignment in patient management: a stochastic programming approach.

To mitigate outpatient care delivery inefficiencies induced by resource shortages and demand heterogeneity, this paper focuses on the problem of allocating and sequencing multiple medical resources so that patients scheduled for clinical care can experience efficient and coordinated care with minimum total waiting time. We leverage highly granular location data on people and medical resources collected via Real-Time Location System technologies to identify dominant patient care pathways. A novel two-stage Stochastic Mixed Integer Linear Programming model is proposed to determine the optimal patient sequence based on the available resources according to the care pathways that minimize patients' expected total waiting time. The model incorporates the uncertainty in care activity duration via sample average approximation.We employ a Monte Carlo Optimization procedure to determine the appropriate sample size to obtain solutions that provide a good trade-off between approximation accuracy and computational time. Compared to the conventional deterministic model, our proposed model would significantly reduce waiting time for patients in the clinic by 60%, on average, with acceptable computational resource requirements and time complexity. In summary, this paper proposes a computationally efficient formulation for the multi-resource allocation and care sequence assignment optimization problem under uncertainty. It uses continuous assignment decision variables without timestamp and position indices, enabling the data-driven solution of problems with real-time allocation adjustment in a dynamic outpatient environment with complex clinical coordination constraints.

Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?

When considering the introduction of a new intervention in a budget constrained healthcare system, priority setting based on fair principles is fundamental. In many jurisdictions, a multi-criteria approach with several different considerations is employed, including severity and cost-effectiveness. Such multi-criteria approaches raise questions about how to balance different considerations against each other, and how to understand the logical or normative relations between them. For example, some jurisdictions make explicit reference to a large patient benefit as such a consideration. However, since patient benefit is part of a cost-effectiveness assessment it is not clear how to balance considerations of greater patient benefit against considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of a large patient benefit as an independent criterion for priority setting in a healthcare system also considering severity and cost-effectiveness. By taking the opportunity cost of new interventions (i.e., the health forgone in patients already receiving treatment) into account, we argue that patient benefit has a complex relationship to priority setting. More specifically, it cannot be reasonably concluded that large patient benefits should be given priority if severity, cost-effectiveness, and opportunity costs are held constant. Since we cannot find general support for taking patient benefit into account as an independent criterion from any of the most discussed theories about distributive justice: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, telic egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, it is reasonable to avoid doing so. Hence, given the complexity of the role of patient benefit, we conclude that in priority practice, a large patient benefit should not be considered as an independent criterion, on top of considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness.

SAFER model: Strategic allocation of fundamental epidemic resources.

BACKGROUND: To describe the Strategic Allocation of Fundamental Epidemic Resources (SAFER) model as a method to inform equitable community distribution of critical resources and testing infrastructure. METHODS: The SAFER model incorporates a four-quadrant design to categorize a given community based on two scales: testing rate and positivity rate. Three models for stratifying testing rates and positivity rates were applied to census tracts in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin: using median values (MVs), cluster-based classification and goal-oriented values (GVs). RESULTS: Each of the three approaches had its strengths. MV stratification divided the categories most evenly across geography, aiding in assessing resource distribution in a fixed resource and testing capacity environment. The cluster-based stratification resulted in a less broad distribution but likely provides a truer distribution of communities. The GVs grouping displayed the least variation across communities, yet best highlighted our areas of need. CONCLUSIONS: The SAFER model allowed the distribution of census tracts into categories to aid in informing resource and testing allocation. The MV stratification was found to be of most utility in our community for near real time resource allocation based on even distribution of census tracts. The GVs approach was found to better demonstrate areas of need.

Optimal SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allocation using real-time attack-rate estimates in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: When three SARS-CoV-2 vaccines came to market in Europe and North America in the winter of 2020-2021, distribution networks were in a race against a major epidemiological wave of SARS-CoV-2 that began in autumn 2020. Rapid and optimized vaccine allocation was critical during this time. With 95% efficacy reported for two of the vaccines, near-term public health needs likely require that distribution is prioritized to the elderly, health care workers, teachers, essential workers, and individuals with comorbidities putting them at risk of severe clinical progression. METHODS: We evaluate various age-based vaccine distributions using a validated mathematical model based on current epidemic trends in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. We allow for varying waning efficacy of vaccine-induced immunity, as this has not yet been measured. We account for the fact that known COVID-positive cases may not have been included in the first round of vaccination. And, we account for age-specific immune patterns in both states at the time of the start of the vaccination program. Our analysis assumes that health systems during winter 2020-2021 had equal staffing and capacity to previous phases of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic; we do not consider the effects of understaffed hospitals or unvaccinated medical staff. RESULTS: We find that allocating a substantial proportion (>75%) of vaccine supply to individuals over the age of 70 is optimal in terms of reducing total cumulative deaths through mid-2021. This result is robust to different profiles of waning vaccine efficacy and several different assumptions on age mixing during and after lockdown periods. As we do not explicitly model other high-mortality groups, our results on vaccine allocation apply to all groups at high risk of mortality if infected. A median of 327 to 340 deaths can be avoided in Rhode Island (3444 to 3647 in Massachusetts) by optimizing vaccine allocation and vaccinating the elderly first. The vaccination campaigns are expected to save a median of 639 to 664 lives in Rhode Island and 6278 to 6618 lives in Massachusetts in the first half of 2021 when compared to a scenario with no vaccine. A policy of vaccinating only seronegative individuals avoids redundancy in vaccine use on individuals that may already be immune, and would result in 0.5% to 1% reductions in cumulative hospitalizations and deaths by mid-2021. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming high vaccination coverage (>28%) and no major changes in distancing, masking, gathering size, hygiene guidelines, and virus transmissibility between 1 January 2021 and 1 July 2021 a combination of vaccination and population immunity may lead to low or near-zero transmission levels by the second quarter of 2021.

COVID-19 free oncologic surgical hub: The experience of reallocation of a gynecologic oncology unit during pandemic outbreak.

INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the majority of healthcare resources of the affected Italian regions were allocated to COVID-19 patients. Due to lack of resources and high risk of death, most cancer patients have been shifted to non-surgical treatments. The following reports our experience of a Gynaecologic Oncology Unit's reallocation of resources in a COVID-19 free surgical oncologic hub in order to guarantee standard quality of surgical activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective observational study performed in the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit, on the outcomes of the reallocation of surgical activities outside the University Hospital of Bologna, Italy, during the Italian lockdown period. Here, we described our COVID-19 free surgical oncologic pathway, in terms of lifestyle restrictions, COVID-19 screening measures, and patient clinical, surgical and follow up outcomes. RESULTS: During the lockdown period (March 9th - May 4th, 2020), 83 patients were scheduled for oncological surgery, 51 patients underwent surgery. Compared to pre-COVID period, we performed the same activities: number of cases scheduled for surgery, type of surgery and surgical and oncological results. No cases of COVID-19 infection were recorded in operated patients and in medical staff. Patients were compliant and well accepted the lifestyle restrictions and reorganization of the care. CONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS: Our experience showed that the prioritization of oncological surgical care and the allocation of resources during a pandemic in COVID-19 free surgical hubs is an appropriate choice to guarantee oncological protocols.

Optimal Allocation of Societal HIV Prevention Resources to Reduce HIV Incidence in the United States.

Objectives. To optimize combined public and private spending on HIV prevention to achieve maximum reductions in incidence.Methods. We used a national HIV model to estimate new infections from 2018 to 2027 in the United States. We estimated current spending on HIV screening, interventions that move persons with diagnosed HIV along the HIV care continuum, pre-exposure prophylaxis, and syringe services programs. We compared the current funding allocation with 2 optimal scenarios: (1) a limited-reach scenario with expanded efforts to serve eligible persons and (2) an ideal, unlimited-reach scenario in which all eligible persons could be served.Results. A continuation of the current allocation projects 331 000 new HIV cases over the next 10 years. The limited-reach scenario reduces that number by 69%, and the unlimited reach scenario by 94%. The most efficient funding allocations resulted in prompt diagnosis and sustained viral suppression through improved screening of high-risk persons and treatment adherence support for those infected.Conclusions. Optimal allocations of public and private funds for HIV prevention can achieve substantial reductions in new infections. Achieving reductions of more than 90% under current funding will require that virtually all infected receive sustained treatment.

The Dollar or Disease Burden: Caps on Healthcare Spending May Save Money, but at What "Cost" to Patients?

OBJECTIVES: Various strategies to address healthcare spending and medical costs continue to be debated and implemented in the United States. To date, these efforts have failed to adequately contain the growth of healthcare cost. An alternative strategy that has elicited rising interest among policymakers is budget caps. As budget caps become more prevalent, it is important to identify which features are needed to ensure success, both in terms of cost reduction and health improvement. METHODS: We explored the impacts of different features of budget caps by comparing hypothetical service level and global budget caps across 3 annual budget cap growth strategies over a 10-year timeframe in 2005-2015 for 8 of the most commonly occurring conditions in the United States. Health was assessed by a measure of disease burden (disability-adjusted life years). RESULTS: The results indicate that budget caps have the potential for creating savings but can also result in patient harm if not designed well. As a result of these findings, 5 principles were developed for designing budget caps and should guide the use of budget caps to address medical spending. CONCLUSIONS: As public discussion grows about the use of budget caps to constrain health spending, it is critical to recognize that the budget cap design and the resulting healthcare provider behavior will determine whether there is potential harm to public health. Budget cap design should consider variability at the condition level, including patient population, improvements in health, treatment costs, and the innovations available, to both create savings and maximize patient health. In assessing the impact of healthcare spending caps on costs and disease burden, we demonstrate that budget cap design determines potential harm to public health.

Resource scarcity and prioritization decisions in medical care: A lab experiment with heterogeneous patient types.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care systems around the world have received additional funding, while at other times, financial support has been lowered to consolidate public spending. Such budget changes likely affect provision behavior in health care. We study how different degrees of resource scarcity affect medical service provision and, in consequence, patients' health. In a controlled lab environment, physicians are paid by capitation and allocate limited resources to several patients. This implies a trade-off between physicians' profits and patients' health benefits. We vary levels of resource scarcity and patient characteristics systematically and observe that most subjects in the role of physician devote a relatively stable share of budget to patient treatment, implying that they provide fewer services when they face more severe budget constraints. Average patient benefits decrease in proportion to physician budgets. The majority of subjects chooses an allocation that leads to equal patient benefits as opposed to allocating resources efficiently.

Factors Associated with Emergency Department Length of Stay in Critically Ill Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND Length of stay (LOS) in the emergency department (ED) should be measured and evaluated comprehensively as an important indicator of hospital emergency service. In this study, we aimed to analyze clinical characteristics of critically ill patients admitted to the ED and identify the factors associated with LOS. MATERIAL AND METHODS All patients with level 1 and level 2 of the Emergency Severity Index who were admitted to the ED from January 2018 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into 2 groups: LOS ≥4 h and LOS <4 h. Variables were comprehensively analyzed and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS A total of 19 616 patients, including 7269 patients in the LOS ≥4 h group and 12 347 patients in the LOS <4 group, were included. Advanced age, admission in winter and during the night shift, and diseases excluding nervous system diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and trauma were associated with higher risk of LOS. Nervous system diseases, cardiovascular diseases, trauma, and procedures including tracheal intubation, surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis were associated with lower risk of LOS. CONCLUSIONS Prolonged LOS in the ED was associated with increased age and admission in winter and during the night shift, while shortened LOS was associated with nervous system diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and trauma, as well as with procedures including tracheal intubation, surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis. Our findings can serve as a guide for ED physicians to individually evaluate patient condition and allocate medical resources more effectively.

COVID-19: How do emergency departments fare after normalisation steps?

OBJECTIVE: Restrictions imposed for the COVID-19 pandemic and the people's fear of getting infected have caused a significant drop in the number of emergency service admissions. Herein, we aimed to investigate the reflections of our otherwise crowded emergency services' quietness in the period of normalisation. METHODOLOGY: Our study retrospectively investigated three groups of patients: the patients who were admitted to the emergency service in the 'Period of Restrictions' when the restrictions were imposed to limit the spread of the COVID-19 infection; the patients who were admitted to the emergency service in the 'Period of Normalisation' when normalisation attempts were made and the restrictions were lifted; and the patients who were admitted to the emergency service in the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal' exactly 1 year before the normalisation period, which would reflect the normal functioning of the emergency service at that time. The three groups were compared with respect to the demographic characteristics and patient outcomes (death/hospitalisation/discharge). RESULTS: A total of 69 474 patients were admitted to the emergency service in the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal' whereas 21 278 patients were admitted in the 'Period of Restrictions'. The number of emergency service admissions in the 'Period of Restrictions' was significantly lower (P < .01). A total of 72 843 patients were admitted to the emergency service in the 'Period of Normalisation'. There was no statistically significant difference between the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal' and the 'Period of Normalisation' in terms of the number of emergency service admissions (P = .127). A total of 9421 (13.5%) patients were hospitalised in the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal' and the corresponding figure for the 'Period of Normalisation' was 19 876 (27.2%). A total of 24 (0.03%) patients died in the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal', whereas 172 (0.23%) patients died in the 'Period of Normalisation'. The number of patients who were hospitalised and lost in the 'Period of Normalisation' was significantly higher than that of patients who were hospitalised and lost in the 'Period of Pre-pandemic Normal' (P < .01). CONCLUSION: In the period of COVID-19 pandemic, fear of getting infected and the restrictions imposed to limit the spread of the disease have kept people out of hospitals. We believe that while the restrictions imposed on various activities have prevented the virus from spreading, they also caused the course of non-COVID-19 diseases to worsen and mortality rates to rise. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the public should be informed about the importance of uninterrupted treatment/follow-up and 'Life-threatening Urgent Conditions' that should necessarily prompt hospital visits in possible pandemics.

Public support for European cooperation in the procurement, stockpiling and distribution of medicines.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has heightened ongoing political debate about the international joint procurement of medicines and medical countermeasures. The European Union (EU) has developed what remains largely contractual and decentralized international procurement cooperation. The corona crisis has broadened and deepened public debate on such cooperation, in particular on the scope of cooperation, solidarity in the allocation of such cooperation, and delegation of cooperative decision-making. Crucial to political debate about these issues are public attitudes that constrain and undergird international cooperation. METHODS: Our survey includes a randomized survey experiment (conjoint analysis) on a representative sample in five European countries in March 2020, informed by legal and policy debate on medical cooperation. Respondents choose and rate policy packages containing randomized mixes of policy attributes with respect to the scope of medicines covered, the solidarity in conferring priority access and the level of delegation. RESULTS: In all country populations surveyed, the experiment reveals considerable popular support for European cooperation. Significant majorities preferred cooperation packages with greater rather than less scope of medicines regulated; with priority given to most in-need countries; and with delegation to EU-level rather than national expertise. CONCLUSION: Joint procurement raises delicate questions with regard to its scope, the inclusion of cross-border solidarity and the delegation of decision-making, that explain reluctance toward joint procurement among political decision-makers. This research shows that there is considerable public support across different countries in favor of centralization, i.e. a large scope and solidarity in the allocation and delegation of decision-making.

Crisis standards of care in a pandemic: navigating the ethical, clinical, psychological and policy-making maelstrom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused clinicians at the frontlines to confront difficult decisions regarding resource allocation, treatment options and ultimately the life-saving measures that must be taken at the point of care. This article addresses the importance of enacting crisis standards of care (CSC) as a policy mechanism to facilitate the shift to population-based medicine. In times of emergencies and crises such as this pandemic, the enactment of CSC enables concrete decisions to be made by governments relating to supply chains, resource allocation and provision of care to maximize societal benefit. This shift from an individual to a population-based societal focus has profound consequences on how clinical decisions are made at the point of care. Failing to enact CSC may have psychological impacts for healthcare providers particularly related to moral distress, through an inability to fully enact individual beliefs (individually focused clinical decisions) which form their moral compass.

Ethical Issues in COVID-19 Communication to Mitigate the Pandemic: Dilemmas and Practical Implications.

Communication plays a critical role in all stages of a pandemic. From the moment it is officially declared governments and public health organizations aim to inform the public about the risk from the disease and to encourage people to adopt mitigation practices. The purpose of this article is to call attention to the multiple types and the complexity of ethical challenges in COVID-19 communication. Different types of ethical issues in COVID-19 communication are presented in four main sections. The first deals with ethical issues in informing the public about the risk of the pandemic and dilemmas regarding communicating uncertainty, using threats and scare tactics, and framing the pandemic as a war. The second concerns unintended consequences that relate to increasing inequities, stigmatization, ageism, and delaying medical care. The third raises ethical issues in communicating about specific mitigation practices: contact tracing, wearing face masks, spatial (also referred to as social) distancing, and handwashing or sanitizing. The fourth concerns appealing to positive social values associated with solidarity and personal responsibility, and ethical challenges when using these appeals. The article concludes with a list of practical implications and the importance of identifying ethical concerns, which necessitate interdisciplinary knowledge, cross-disciplinary collaborations, public discourse and advocacy.

Treating patients across European Union borders: An international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In light of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, how resources are managed and the critically ill are allocated must be reviewed. Although ethical recommendations have been published, strategies for dealing with overcapacity of critical care resources have so far not been addressed. OBJECTIVES: Assess expert opinion for allocation preferences regarding the growing imbalance between supply and demand for medical resources. DESIGN: A 10-item questionnaire was developed and sent to the most prominent members of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). SETTING: Survey via a web-based platform. PATIENTS: Respondents were members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee and Council Members of the ESAIC; 74 of 80 (92.5%), responded to the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were analysed thematically. The majority of respondents (83.8%), indicated that resources for COVID-19 were available at the time of the survey. Of the representatives of the ESAIC governing bodies, 58.9% favoured an allocation of excess critical care capacity: 69% wished to make them available to supraregional patients, whereas 30.9% preferred to keep the resources available for the local population. Regarding the type of distribution of resources, 35.3% preferred to make critical care available, 32.4% favoured the allocation of medical equipment and 32.4% wished to support both options. The majority (59.5%) supported the implementation of a central European institution to manage such resource allocation. CONCLUSION: Experts in critical care support the allocation of resources from centres with overcapacity. The results indicate the need for centrally administered allocation mechanisms that are not based on ethically disputable triage systems. It seems, therefore, that there is wide acceptance and solidarity among the European anaesthesiological community that local medical and human pressure should be relieved during a pandemic by implementing national and international re-allocation strategies among healthcare providers and healthcare systems.

An illumination of the ICN's core competencies in disaster nursing version 2.0: Advanced nursing response to COVID-19 outbreak in China.

AIM: This study aims to report on the actions and incident management of the advanced practice nurses of a disaster operation team who were deployed in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, and to explore how it illustrated the Core Competencies in Disaster Nursing Version 2.0 delineated by the International Council of Nurses in 2019. METHODS: This is a descriptive study. The participants (responders) communicated and reported their actions in the operation with headquarter on a popular social media platform in China (WeChat), established specifically for the three-rescue teams. RESULTS: The response approach of advanced nurses to COVID-19 encompassed six of the eight domains of the competencies outlined in ICN CCDN V2.0, namely on preparation and planning, communication, incident management systems, safety and security, assessment and intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The response teams of advanced practice nurses in this study clearly demonstrated their competencies in disaster rescue, which fulfilled most of the core competencies set forth by the ICN. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The findings of this study contributed to understand the roles played by advanced practice nurses and nurse managers in disaster management and how these relate to the competencies set forth by the ICN.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the delivery of cellular therapeutics, including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. This impact has extended beyond patient care to include logistics, administration, and distribution of increasingly limited health care resources. Based on the collective experience of the CAR T-cell Consortium investigators, we review and address several questions and concerns regarding cellular therapy administration in the setting of COVID-19 and make general recommendations to address these issues. Specifically, we address (1) necessary resources for safe administration of cell therapies; (2) determinants of cell therapy utilization; (3) selection among patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia; (4) supportive measures during cell therapy administration; (5) use and prioritization of tocilizumab; and (6) collaborative care with referring physicians. These recommendations were carefully formulated with the understanding that resource allocation is of the utmost importance, and that the decision to proceed with CAR T cell therapy will require extensive discussion of potential risks and benefits. Although these recommendations are fluid, at this time it is our opinion that the COVID-19 pandemic should not serve as reason to defer CAR T cell therapy for patients truly in need of a potentially curative therapy.

Coronavirus disease 2019: Utilizing an ethical framework for rationing absolutely scarce health-care resources in transplant allocation decisions.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is impacting transplant programs around the world, and, as the center of the pandemic shifts to the United States, we have to prepare to make decisions about which patients to transplant during times of constrained resources. In this paper, we discuss how to transition from the traditional justice versus utility consideration in organ allocation to a more nuanced allocation scheme based on ethical values that drive decisions in times of absolute scarcity. We recognize that many decisions are made based on the practical limitations that transplant programs face, especially at the extremes. As programs make the transition from a standard approach to a resource-constrained approach to transplantation, we utilize a framework for ethical decisions in settings of absolutely scarce resources to help guide programs in deciding which patients to transplant, which donors to accept, how to minimize risk, and how to ensure the best utilization of transplant team members.

Osteoporosis in the age of COVID-19.

As the world grapples with the crisis of COVID-19, established economies and healthcare systems have been brought to their knees. Tough decisions regarding redirection of resources away from the management of conditions deemed "nonessential" are being made. How can we balance urgent resourcing of our acute crisis while not abandoning the real need of patients with osteoporosis? This article offers a few practical solutions.

Immediate and Long-Term Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for People With Disabilities.

Some people with disabilities may have greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or experiencing worse outcomes if infected. Although COVID-19 is a genuine threat for people with disabilities, they also fear decisions that might limit lifesaving treatment should they contract the virus.During a pandemic, health systems must manage excess demand for treatment, and governments must enact heavy restrictions on their citizens to prevent transmission. Both actions can have a negative impact on people with disabilities.Ironically, the sociotechnical advances prompted by this pandemic could also revolutionize quality of life and participation for people with disabilities. Preparation for future disasters requires careful consideration.