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.

Influence of broader geographic allograft sharing on outcomes and cost in smaller lung transplant centers.

OBJECTIVE: On November 24, 2017, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a change to lung allocation replacing donor service area with a 250 nautical mile radius around donor hospitals. We sought to evaluate the experience of a small to medium size center following implementation. METHODS: Patients (47 pre and 54 post) undergoing lung transplantation were identified from institutional database from January 2016 to October 2019. Detailed chart review and analysis of institutional cost data was performed. Univariate analysis was performed to compare eras. RESULTS: Similar short-term mortality and primary graft dysfunction were observed between groups. Decreased local donation (68% vs 6%; P < .001), increased travel distance (145 vs 235 miles; P = .004), travel cost ($8626 vs $14,482; P < .001), and total procurement cost ($60,852 vs $69,052; P = .001) were observed postimplementation. We also document an increase in waitlist mortality postimplementation (6.9 vs 31.6 per 100 patient-years; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of the new allocation policy in a small to medium size center, several changes were in accordance with policy intention. However, concerning shifts emerged, including increased waitlist mortality and resource utilization. Continued close monitoring of transplant centers stratified by size and location are paramount to maintaining global availability of lung transplantation to all Americans regardless of geographic residence or socioeconomic status.

Examining Corneal Tissue Exportation Fee and Its Impact on Equitable Allocation.

METHODS: We conducted grounded theory semistructured interviews, purposively inviting participants until themed saturation was met. Sentiment analysis was used to determine opinion. RESULTS: We interviewed n = 92 global eye tissue and eye bank professionals. We determined that corneal tissue, which is exported, costs between US $100 and US $6000 or is provided as gratis. Collectively, interviewees indicated that, globally, there were no fixed fee structures in place, and the fee was influenced by multiple factors on both export and import sides. They indicated that ultimately corneas were allocated based on the importers' ability to pay the price determined by the exporting eye bank. DISCUSSION: Allocation of corneal tissue, which is exported, is influenced by the fees charged by the exporters to meet their bottom line and the funds available to importers. Therefore, export allocation is not equitable, with those who can pay a higher fee, prioritized. Steps to guide and support exporters with the development of fee structures that promote equitable allocation are essential. This will assist both export and import eye bank development, corneal tissue access development, and those awaiting a corneal transplant.

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, Workforce Autonomy and the Health Supply Chain.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid surge in demand for critical supplies and public health efforts needed to guard against virus transmission have placed enormous pressure on health systems worldwide. These pressures and the uncertainty they have created have impacted the health workforce in a substantial way. This paper examines the relationship between health supply chain capacity and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canada's health workforce. The findings of this research also highlight the impact of the pandemic on health workers, specifically the relationship between the health supply chain and the autonomy of the health workforce.

Ethical Allocation of Scarce Food Resources During Public Health Emergencies.

Escalating demands for limited food supplies at America's food banks and pantries during the COVID-19 pandemic have raised ethical concerns underlying "first-come, first-served" distributions strategies. A series of model ethical principles are designed to guide ethical allocations of these resources to assure greater access among persons facing food insecurity.

A multi-stage stochastic programming approach to epidemic resource allocation with equity considerations.

Existing compartmental models in epidemiology are limited in terms of optimizing the resource allocation to control an epidemic outbreak under disease growth uncertainty. In this study, we address this core limitation by presenting a multi-stage stochastic programming compartmental model, which integrates the uncertain disease progression and resource allocation to control an infectious disease outbreak. The proposed multi-stage stochastic program involves various disease growth scenarios and optimizes the distribution of treatment centers and resources while minimizing the total expected number of new infections and funerals. We define two new equity metrics, namely infection and capacity equity, and explicitly consider equity for allocating treatment funds and facilities over multiple time stages. We also study the multi-stage value of the stochastic solution (VSS), which demonstrates the superiority of the proposed stochastic programming model over its deterministic counterpart. We apply the proposed formulation to control the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia of West Africa to determine the optimal and fair resource-allocation strategies. Our model balances the proportion of infections over all regions, even without including the infection equity or prevalence equity constraints. Model results also show that allocating treatment resources proportional to population is sub-optimal, and enforcing such a resource allocation policy might adversely impact the total number of infections and deaths, and thus resulting in a high cost that we have to pay for the fairness. Our multi-stage stochastic epidemic-logistics model is practical and can be adapted to control other infectious diseases in meta-populations and dynamically evolving situations.

[The management of nephropathic patients during the Covid-19 pandemic: the experience of Ragusa].

The public emergency caused by Covid-19 has forced health services to reorganize in order to separate positive patients from negative ones. In nephrology, this reorganization involves several levels of assistance concerning hospitalizations, ambulatory care and haemodialysis. Within the Complex Unit of Nephrology in Ragusa, the distribution of nephro-dialytic resources has involved four different hospitals, hence ensuring haemodialysis services for asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic Covid-19 patients as well as for patients in Covid-Unit, Sub-Intensive Therapy and Intensive Care Unit. In this complex context, we had to create a common protocol involving all the professionals who provide assistance in our Unit, across the different structures. We also report some encouraging data that seem to indicate the effectiveness of the protocols put in place.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

COVID-19 in aged care homes: a comparison of effects initial government policies had in the UK (primarily focussing on England) and Australia during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact globally, with older people living in aged care homes suffering high death rates. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the impact of initial government policies on this vulnerable older population between the UK and Australia during the first wave of attack. METHODS: We searched websites of governments in the UK and Australia and media outlets. We examined the key policies including the national lockdown dates and the distribution of some important resources (personal protective equipment and testing) and the effects of these initial policies on the mortality rates in the aged care homes during the first wave of attack of COVID-19. RESULTS: We found that both countries had prioritized resources to hospitals over aged care homes during the first wave of attack. Both countries had lower priority for aged care residents in hospitals (e.g. discharging without testing for COVID-19 or discouraging admissions). However, deaths in aged care homes were 270 times higher in the UK than in Australia as on 7 May 2020 (despite UK having a population only 2.5 times larger than Australia). The lower fatality rate in Australia may have been due to the earlier lockdown strategy when the total daily cases were low in Australia (118) compared to the UK (over 1000), as well as the better community viral testing regime in Australia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the public health policy in Australia aimed towards earlier intervention with earlier national lockdown and more viral testing to prevent new cases. This primary prevention could have resulted in more lives being saved. In contrast, the initial policy in the UK focussed mainly on protecting resources for hospitals, and there was a delay in national lockdown intervention and lower viral testing rate, resulting in more lives lost in the aged care sector.

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

Resource allocation for depression management in general practice: A simple data-based filter model.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to illustrate the potential utility of a simple filter model in understanding the patient outcome and cost-effectiveness implications for depression interventions in primary care. METHODS: Modelling of hypothetical intervention scenarios during different stages of the treatment pathway was conducted. RESULTS: Three scenarios were developed for depression related to increasing detection, treatment response and treatment uptake. The incremental costs, incremental number of successes (i.e., depression remission) and the incremental costs-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. In the modelled scenarios, increasing provider treatment response resulted in the greatest number of incremental successes above baseline, however, it was also associated with the greatest ICER. Increasing detection rates was associated with the second greatest increase to incremental successes above baseline and had the lowest ICER. CONCLUSIONS: The authors recommend utility of the filter model to guide the identification of areas where policy stakeholders and/or researchers should invest their efforts in depression management.

Geographic Coverage and Verification of Trauma Centers in a Rural State: Highlighting the Utility of Location Allocationfor Trauma System Planning.

BACKGROUND: Care at verified trauma centers has improved survival and functional outcomes, yet determining the appropriate location of potential trauma centers is often driven by factors other than optimizing system-level patient care. Given the importance of transport time in trauma, we analyzed trauma transport patterns in a rural state lacking an organized trauma system and implemented a geographic information system to inform potential future trauma center locations. STUDY DESIGN: Data were collected on trauma ground transport during a 3-year period (2014 through 2016) from the Statewide Incident Reporting Network database. Geographic information system mapping and location-allocation modeling of the best-fit facility for trauma center verification was computed using trauma transport patterns, population density, road network layout, and 60-minute emergency medical services transport time based on current transport protocols. RESULTS: Location-allocation modeling identified 2 regional facilities positioned to become the next verified trauma centers. The proportion of the Vermont population without access to trauma center care within 60 minutes would be reduced from the current 29.68% to 5.81% if the identified facilities become verified centers. CONCLUSIONS: Through geospatial mapping and location-allocation modeling, we were able to identify gaps and suggest optimal trauma center locations to maximize population coverage in a rural state lacking a formal, organized trauma system. These findings could inform future decision-making for targeted capacity improvement and system design that emphasizes more equitable access to trauma center care in Vermont.

Should Donors Consent to Export Their Corneas? Examination of Eye Tissue and Eye Care Sector Opinion.

PURPOSE: Corneal tissue international activity is only possible because of the willingness of export populations to donate their corneas on their death. Current predonation public education campaigns and at-the-point-of-donation consent practice generally includes consent for transplantation, research, and/or training. It is unclear whether a consent-for-export step is universally included in the consent process or, indeed, whether it should. We interviewed eye tissue and eye care professionals from around the world, who exported, imported, or did neither to understand current consent-for-export awareness and determine opinion on future practice. METHOD: During wider qualitative grounded-theory semistructured interviews with sector experts, to determine whether Australia should export, we captured sector opinion on consent-for-export. We used saturation and sentiment methods to determine opinion and χ2 correlation coefficients to examine association, using an α of P = 0.05. RESULTS: We interviewed 92 individuals, 83 of whom discussed consent-for-export. Of those, 51% (42/83) demonstrated some awareness of the practice; however, there were contradictions between interviewees from the same location. Regardless of current awareness, 57% (41/72) believed donors should be informed or consented for export. Their approval did not extend to donor-directed decisions, which would allow donors to decide which nation their donation should be sent, with 62.5% (45/72) opposing that notion. CONCLUSIONS: Our research indicates that the consent-for-export practice is not universally applied by exporting nations and that eye tissue and eye care professionals have limited awareness of the practice. Universally implementing a consent-for-export step within general consent practice would improve awareness, reduce confusion, and support donor wishes.