Using system dynamics modelling to assess the economic efficiency of innovations in the public sector - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decision-makers for public policy are increasingly utilising systems approaches such as system dynamics (SD) modelling, which test alternative interventions or policies for their potential impact while accounting for complexity. These approaches, however, have not consistently included an economic efficiency analysis dimension. This systematic review aims to examine how, and in what ways, system dynamics modelling approaches incorporate economic efficiency analyses to inform decision-making on innovations (improvements in products, services, or processes) in the public sector, with a particular interest in health. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Relevant studies (n = 29) were identified through a systematic search and screening of four electronic databases and backward citation search, and analysed for key characteristics and themes related to the analytical methods applied. Economic efficiency analysis approaches within SD broadly fell into two categories: as embedded sub-models or as cost calculations based on the outputs of the SD model. Embdedded sub-models within a dynamic SD framework can reveal a clear allocation of costs and benefits to periods of time, whereas cost calculations based on the SD model outputs can be useful for high-level resource allocation decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reveals that SD modelling is not currently used to its full potential to evaluate the technical or allocative efficiency of public sector innovations, particularly in health. The limited reporting on the experience or methodological challenges of applying allocated efficiency analyses with SD, particularly with dynamic embedded models, hampers common learning lessons to draw from and build on. Further application and comprehensive reporting of this approach would be welcome to develop the methodology further.

Changing Patterns of Bloodstream Infections in the Community and Acute Care Across 2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Epidemic Waves: A Retrospective Analysis Using Data Linkage.

BACKGROUND: We examined community- and hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (BSIs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 patients across 2 epidemic waves. METHODS: We analyzed blood cultures of patients presenting to a London hospital group between January 2020 and February 2021. We reported BSI incidence, changes in sampling, case mix, healthcare capacity, and COVID-19 variants. RESULTS: We identified 1047 BSIs from 34 044 blood cultures, including 653 (62.4%) community-acquired and 394 (37.6%) hospital-acquired. Important pattern changes were seen. Community-acquired Escherichia coli BSIs remained below prepandemic level during COVID-19 waves, but peaked following lockdown easing in May 2020, deviating from the historical trend of peaking in August. The hospital-acquired BSI rate was 100.4 per 100 000 patient-days across the pandemic, increasing to 132.3 during the first wave and 190.9 during the second, with significant increase in elective inpatients. Patients with a hospital-acquired BSI, including those without COVID-19, experienced 20.2 excess days of hospital stay and 26.7% higher mortality, higher than reported in prepandemic literature. In intensive care, the BSI rate was 421.0 per 100 000 intensive care unit patient-days during the second wave, compared to 101.3 pre-COVID-19. The BSI incidence in those infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Alpha variant was similar to that seen with earlier variants. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic have impacted the patterns of community- and hospital-acquired BSIs, in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Factors driving the patterns are complex. Infection surveillance needs to consider key aspects of pandemic response and changes in healthcare practice.

Macro level influences on strategic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic - an international survey and tool for national assessments.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the approaches taken to contain the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic at country level has been shaped by economic and political considerations, technical capacity, and assumptions about public behaviours. To address the limited application of learning from previous pandemics, this study aimed to analyse perceived facilitators and inhibitors during the pandemic and to inform the development of an assessment tool for pandemic response planning. METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey of health and non-health care professionals (5 May - 5 June 2020) in six languages, with respondents recruited via email, social media and website posting. Participants were asked to score inhibitors (-10 to 0) or facilitators (0 to +10) impacting country response to COVID-19 from the following domains - Political, Economic, Sociological, Technological, Ecological, Legislative, and wider Industry (the PESTELI framework). Participants were then asked to explain their responses using free text. Descriptive and thematic analysis was followed by triangulation with the literature and expert validation to develop the assessment tool, which was then compared with four existing pandemic planning frameworks. RESULTS: 928 respondents from 66 countries (57% health care professionals) participated. Political and economic influences were consistently perceived as powerful negative forces and technology as a facilitator across high- and low-income countries. The 103-item tool developed for guiding rapid situational assessment for pandemic planning is comprehensive when compared to existing tools and highlights the interconnectedness of the 7 domains. CONCLUSIONS: The tool developed and proposed addresses the problems associated with decision making in disciplinary silos and offers a means to refine future use of epidemic modelling.

Macro level factors influencing strategic responses to emergent pandemics: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Strategic planning is critical for successful pandemic management. This study aimed to identify and review the scope and analytic depth of situation analyses conducted to understand their utility, and capture the documented macro-level factors impacting pandemic management. METHODS: To synthesise this disparate body of literature, we adopted a two-step search and review process. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all studies since 2000, that have 1) employed a situation analysis; and 2) examined contextual factors influencing pandemic management. The included studies are analysed using a seven-domain systems approach from the discipline of strategic management. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the final review ranging from single country (6) to regional, multi-country studies (13). Fourteen studies had a single disease focus, with 5 studies evaluating responses to one or more of COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Influenza A (H1N1), Ebola virus disease, and Zika virus disease pandemics. Six studies examined a single domain from political, economic, sociological, technological, ecological or wider industry (PESTELI), 5 studies examined two to four domains, and 8 studies examined five or more domains. Methods employed were predominantly literature reviews. The recommendations focus predominantly on addressing inhibitors in the sociological and technological domains with few recommendations articulated in the political domain. Overall, the legislative domain is least represented. CONCLUSIONS: Ex-post analysis using the seven-domain strategic management framework provides further opportunities for a planned systematic response to pandemics which remains critical as the current COVID-19 pandemic evolves.

Trends in Antibiotic Prescribing in Out-of-Hours Primary Care in England from January 2016 to June 2020 to Understand Behaviours during the First Wave of COVID-19.

We describe the trend of antibiotic prescribing in out-of-hours (OOH) general practices (GP) before and during England's first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We analysed practice-level prescribing records between January 2016 to June 2020 to report the trends for the total prescribing volume, prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics and key agents included in the national Quality Premium. We performed a time-series analysis to detect measurable changes in the prescribing volume associated with COVID-19. Before COVID-19, the total prescribing volume and the percentage of broad-spectrum antibiotics continued to decrease in-hours (IH). The prescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics was higher in OOH (OOH: 10.1%, IH: 8.7%), but a consistent decrease in the trimethoprim-to-nitrofurantoin ratio was observed OOH. The OOH antibiotic prescribing volume diverged from the historical trend in March 2020 and started to decrease by 5088 items per month. Broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing started to increase in OOH and IH. In OOH, co-amoxiclav and doxycycline peaked in March to May in 2020, which was out of sync with seasonality peaks (Winter) in previous years. While this increase might be explained by the implementation of the national guideline to use co-amoxiclav and doxycycline to manage pneumonia in the community during COVID-19, further investigation is required to see whether the observed reduction in OOH antibiotic prescribing persists and how this reduction might influence antimicrobial resistance and patient outcomes.