Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32642878›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2020

COVID-19 scenario modelling for the mitigation of capacity-dependent deaths in intensive care.

Richard M Wood, Christopher J McWilliams, Matthew J Thomas, Christopher P Bourdeaux, Christos Vasilakis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. COVID-19 health policy evaluation: integrating health and economic perspectives with a data envelopment analysis approach.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Considerations for acute care staffing during a pandemic.Best practice & research. Clinical anaesthesiology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard M WoodModelling and Analytics, UK National Health Service (BNSSG CCG), Bristol, UK. richard.wood16@nhs.net.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3476-395X
Christopher J McWilliamsDepartment of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3816-5217
Matthew J ThomasIntensive Care Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3299-3495
Christopher P BourdeauxIntensive Care Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6620-6536
Christos VasilakisCentre for Healthcare Innovation and Improvement (CHI2), School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0391-0910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Managing healthcare demand and capacity is especially difficult in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where limited intensive care resources can be overwhelmed by a large number of cases requiring admission in a short space of time. If patients are unable to access this specialist resource, then death is a likely outcome. In appreciating these 'capacity-dependent' deaths, this paper reports on the clinically-led development of a stochastic discrete event simulation model designed to capture the key dynamics of the intensive care admissions process for COVID-19 patients. With application to a large public hospital in England during an early stage of the pandemic, the purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which such capacity-dependent deaths can be mitigated through demand-side initiatives involving non-pharmaceutical interventions and supply-side measures to increase surge capacity. Based on information available at the time, results suggest that total capacity-dependent deaths can be reduced by 75% through a combination of increasing capacity from 45 to 100 beds, reducing length of stay by 25%, and flattening the peak demand to 26 admissions per day. Accounting for the additional 'capacity-independent' deaths, which occur even when appropriate care is available within the intensive care setting, yields an aggregate reduction in total deaths of 30%. The modelling tool, which is freely available and open source, has since been used to support COVID-19 response planning at a number of healthcare systems within the UK National Health Service.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical CareEnglandHealth Services Needs and DemandHospitals, PublicHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2State MedicineCapacity managementCoronavirusCOVID-19Intensive careOperations researchSimulation

Identifiers

PMID32642878
PMCPMC7341703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.