Balancing scarce hospital resources during the COVID-19 pandemic using discrete-event simulation

COVID-19 has disrupted healthcare operations and resulted in large-scale cancellations of elective surgery. Hospitals throughout the world made life-altering resource allocation decisions and prioritised the care of COVID-19 patients. Without effective models to evaluate resource allocation strategies encompassing COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 care, hospitals face the risk of making sub-optimal local resource allocation decisions. A discrete-event-simulation model is proposed in this paper to describe COVID-19, elective surgery, and emergency surgery patient flows. COVID-19-specific patient flows and a surgical patient flow network were constructed based on data of 475 COVID-19 patients and 28,831 non-COVID-19 patients in Addenbrooke’s hospital in the UK. The model enabled the evaluation of three resource allocation strategies, for two COVID-19 wave scenarios: proactive cancellation of elective surgery, reactive cancellation of elective surgery, and ring-fencing operating theatre capacity. The results suggest that a ring-fencing strategy outperforms the other strategies, regardless of the COVID-19 scenario, in terms of total direct deaths and the number of surgeries performed. However, this does come at the cost of 50% more critical care rejections. In terms of aggregate hospital performance, a reactive cancellation strategy prioritising COVID-19 is no longer favourable if more than 7.3% of elective surgeries can be considered life-saving. Additionally, the model demonstrates the impact of timely hospital preparation and staff availability, on the ability to treat patients during a pandemic. The model can aid hospitals worldwide during pandemics and disasters, to evaluate their resource allocation strategies and identify the effect of redefining the prioritisation of patients.

     

COVID-19 vaccinations in German pharmacies: A survey on patient and provider satisfaction

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccinations applied in pharmacies can facilitate accessibility and potentially increase the vaccination rate but remain controversial in many countries. This study aimed to explore the patients’ motivation to receive their COVID-19 vaccination in a pharmacy and examine patient and provider satisfaction with this novel service.MethodsThe study was designed as an explorative cross-sectional multicenter in-house quantitative survey and was conducted during the first weeks of COVID-19 vaccinations in German pharmacies from February to April 2022. The survey consisted of a paper-based questionnaire with scaling questions, multiple choice questions and open questions. Patients were recruited consecutively before their vaccination and completed the survey directly after the service. Vaccinating pharmacists were also invited to answer a questionnaire on their experiences, motivation and expectations.ResultsA total of 427 questionnaires out of 11 pharmacies were be included. The overall patient satisfaction with vaccinations in pharmacies was rated with the highest remarks by 91.5% of the participants, another 7.8% were fairly satisfied. Patient satisfaction with scheduling, waiting time, information, hygiene, vaccination technique and a feeling of safety was very high (96.5–97.9%). Patients’ motivation on COVID-19 vaccination was to prevent severe COVID-19 symptoms (88.9%) and to protect others (72.3%). Easy accessibility, low barriers and proximity were other reasons for utilizing this service, mentioned by 61.8% of the patients. Pharmacists were highly motivated and found the task meaningful but experienced considerable personnel shortage. General practitioners rather expressed relief on their workload.ConclusionsData of this study strongly supports to include pharmacies as additional providers of COVID-19 vaccinations. Patients stated marked satisfaction with this setting and expressed a feeling of safety and trust. Whereas most patients may have utilized the service for convenience, easy accessibility and low barriers were appreciated and can potentially contribute to higher vaccination rates.     

A tale of two countries: costs and financial incentives for provisional stenting during percutaneous coronary intervention in France and the United States

Provisional stenting is associated with longer physician time but the use of fewer stents. This randomized controlled trial in tertiary care in French hospitals compared strategies of systematic and provisional stenting. We estimated the costs and financial incentives associated with each strategy, based on individual data on 12-month resource use drawn from a 251-patient database.Resources were evaluated using French costs; data on costs in the United States were drawn from the literature and interviews with hospital administrators in one center. In France 1-year costs were $8,267±528 for provisional stenting and $7,973±553 for systematic stenting, compared to $18,715 and $18,632 in the United States. Given the uncertainty of longterm results, the choice between stenting strategies might be guided by financial incentives. In the United States financial incentives favor systematic stenting, while in France public hospitals and physicians are neutral.     

U.S. public support for COVID-19 vaccine donation to low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

As COVID-19 vaccines become available to the public, there will be a massive worldwide distribution effort. Vaccine distribution has historically been unequal primarily due to the inability of nations with developing economies to purchase enough vaccine to fully vaccinate their populations. Inequitable access to COVID-19 vaccines will not just cause humanitarian suffering, it will likely also be associated with increased economic suffering worldwide. This study focuses on the U.S. population and its beliefs about future COVID-19 vaccine donation by the U.S. to low- and middle-income countries.This study carried out a survey among 788 U.S. adults. Variables include demographics, COVID-19 vaccine priority status, COVID-19 vaccine donation beliefs, and Social Dominance Orientation.Analyses showed that older respondents were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations and were more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it; those who identified as Democrats were more likely to endorse higher levels of future COVID-19 vaccine donation than Republicans; and those scoring higher on SDO were both less likely to endorse higher levels of COVID-19 vaccine donations as well as more likely to want to wait until all in the U.S. who want the vaccine have received it. Policymakers, as well as healthcare providers and public health communication professionals, should give consideration to those messages most likely to engender support for global prevention efforts with each audience segment.     

A country-level analysis comparing hospital capacity and utilisation during the first COVID-19 wave across Europe

BackgroundThe exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections during the first wave of the pandemic created an extraordinary overload and demand on hospitals, especially intensive care units (ICUs), across Europe. European countries have implemented different measures to address the surge ICU capacity, but little is known about the extent. The aim of this paper is to compare the rates of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in acute and ICU care and the levels of national surge capacity for intensive care beds across 16 European countries and Lombardy region during the first wave of the pandemic (28 February to 31 July).MethodsFor this country level analysis, we used data on SARS-CoV-2 cases, current and/or cumulative hospitalised COVID-19 patients and current and/or cumulative COVID-19 patients in ICU care. To analyse whether capacities were exceeded, we also retrieved information on the numbers of hospital beds, and on (surge) capacity of ICU beds during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM). Treatment days and mean length of hospital stay were calculated to assess hospital utilisation.ResultsHospital and ICU capacity varied widely across countries. Our results show that utilisation of acute care bed capacity by patients with COVID-19 did not exceed 38.3% in any studied country. However, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Lombardy would not have been able to treat all patients with COVID-19 requiring intensive care during the first wave without an ICU surge capacity. Indicators of hospital utilisation were not consistently related to the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The mean number of hospital days associated with one SARS-CoV-2 case ranged from 1.3 (Norway) to 11.8 (France).ConclusionIn many countries, the increase in ICU capacity was important to accommodate the high demand for intensive care during the first COVID-19 wave.     

“COVID-19 and income inequality in OECD countries:” A methodological comment

Wildman (2021), who identifies “a clear association between income inequality [measured by the Gini coefficient] and COVID-19 cases and deaths,” concludes that “a goal of government should be to reduce [income] inequalities and [thereby] improve [the COVID-19 outcomes /] underlying health of their populations.” In this Comment, we argue that reducing the Gini coefficient of the income distribution of a population need not weaken the population’s social stress. It is this stress which is a source of adverse health outcomes of the population. Because a measure of this stress is a component of the Gini coefficient, reducing the coefficient can leave the measure as is, or even increase the measure.

     

Protecting health during COVID-19 and beyond: A global examination of paid sick leave design in 193 countries*

ABSTRACT

Well-designed paid sick leave is critical to ensure workers stay home when sick to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious pathogens, both when the economy is open and during an economic shutdown. To assess whether paid sick leave is available in countries around the world, we created and analysed a database of legislative guarantees of paid leave for personal illness in 193 UN member states. Original labour and social security legislation and global information on social security systems for each country were obtained and analysed by a multilingual research team using a common coding framework. While strong models exist across low- middle- and high-income countries, critical gaps that jeopardise health and economic security remain. 27% of countries do not guarantee paid sick leave from the first day of illness, essential to encouraging workers to stay home when they are sick and prevent spread. 58% of countries do not have explicit provisions to ensure self-employed and gig economy workers have access to paid sick leave benefits. Comprehensive paid sick leave policies that cover all workers are urgently needed if we are to reduce the spread of COVID-19, and be ready to respond to threats from new pathogens.     

Conditionality of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in European countries

The COVID-19 vaccine rollout has offered a powerful preventive measure to help control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Nevertheless, long-standing public hesitation around vaccines heightened concerns that vaccine coverage would not achieve desired public health impacts, particularly in light of more contagious variants. This cross-sectional survey was conducted online just before the European vaccine rollout in December 2020 among 7000 respondents (aged 18–65) in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine. The survey included open text boxes for fuller explanation of responses. Overall, 56.9% of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine, 19.0% would not, and 24.1% did not know or preferred not to say. By country, between 44% (France) and 66% (Italy) of respondents would accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Respondents expressed conditionality in open responses, voicing concerns about vaccine safety and mistrust of authorities. We highlight lessons learned about the dynamism of vaccine conditionality and persistence of safety concerns.     

Cost of vaccine delivery strategies in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted immunization services critical to the prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases in many low- and middle- income countries around the world. These services will need to be modified in order to minimize COVID-19 transmission and ensure the safety of health workers and the community. Additional budget will be required to implement these modifications that ensure safe delivery.MethodsUsing a simple modeling analysis, we estimated the additional resource requirements associated with modifications to supplementary immunization activities (campaigns) and routine immunization services via fixed sites and outreach in 2020 US dollars. We considered the following four categories of costs: (1) personal protective equipment (PPE) & infection prevention and control (IPC) measures for immunization sessions; (2) physical distancing and screening during immunization sessions; (3) delivery strategy changes, such as changes in session sizes and frequency; and (4) other operational cost increases, including additional social mobilization, training, and hazard pay to compensate health workers.ResultsWe found that implementing a range of measures to protect health workers and communities from COVID-19 transmission could result in a per-facility start-up cost of $466–799 for routine fixed-site delivery and $12–220 for routine outreach delivery, and $12–108 per immunization campaign site. A recurrent monthly cost of $137–1,024 for fixed-site delivery and $152–848 for outreach delivery per facility could be incurred, and a $0.32–0.85 increase in the cost per dose during campaigns.ConclusionsBy illustrating potential cost implications of providing immunization services through a range of strategies in a safe manner, these estimates can provide a benchmark for program managers and policy makers on the additional budget required. These findings can help country practitioners and global development partners planning the continuation of immunization services in the context of COVID-19.     

Urban greenspace and anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: A 20-month follow up of 19,848 participants in England

This study examined the association between greenspace and the growth trajectories of anxiety symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from 19,848 urban residents in England who were followed for 20 months between March 2020 and October 2021, we found that living in an area with higher greenspace coverage (exposure) was associated with fewer anxiety symptoms independent of population density, area deprivation levels, socio-demographics, and health profiles. There was limited evidence that greenspace was related to the change of anxiety symptoms over time. No association with anxiety trajectories was found when considering distance to nearest greenspace (proximity), highlighting potentially differential mental health effects of simply having access to local parks and recreation areas versus living in areas of greater natural environment land cover. These findings have important implications for mental health intervention and policymaking.     

Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

European Journal of Epidemiology -     

How the COVID-19 pandemic can distort risk adjustment of health plan payment

The European Journal of Health Economics - The COVID-19 pandemic has led to disruptions in healthcare utilization and spending. While some changes might persist (e.g. substitution of specialist...     

Safety of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAssessment of COVID-19 vaccines safety during pregnancy is urgently needed.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including their components and technological platforms used in other vaccines during pregnancy and animal studies to complement direct evidence. We searched literature databases from its inception to September 2021 without language restriction, COVID-19 vaccine websites, and reference lists of other systematic reviews and the included studies. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, data extracted, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. (PROSPERO CRD42021234185).ResultsWe retrieved 8,837 records from the literature search; 71 studies were included, involving 17,719,495 pregnant persons and 389 pregnant animals. Most studies (94%) were conducted in high-income countries, were cohort studies (51%), and 15% were classified as high risk of bias. We identified nine COVID-19 vaccine studies, seven involving 309,164 pregnant persons, mostly exposed to mRNA vaccines. Among non-COVID-19 vaccines, the most frequent exposures were AS03 and aluminum-based adjuvants.A meta-analysis of studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed no association with adverse outcomes, regardless of the vaccine or the trimester of vaccination.Neither the reported rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes nor reactogenicity exceeded expected background rates, which was the case for ASO3- or aluminum-adjuvanted non-COVID-19 vaccines in the proportion meta-analyses of uncontrolled studies/arms. The only exception was postpartum hemorrhage after COVID-19 vaccination (10.40%; 95% CI: 6.49–15.10%), reported by two studies; however, the comparison with non-exposed pregnant persons, available for one study, found non-statistically significant differences (adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.56–2.12). Animal studies showed consistent results with studies in pregnant persons.ConclusionWe found no safety concerns for currently administered COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Additional experimental and real-world evidence could enhance vaccination coverage. Robust safety data for non-mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines are still needed.