Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:52:23.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Uncertainty and Operational Considerations in Mass Prophylaxis Workforce Planning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Nathaniel Hupert ,
Wei Xiong ,
Kathleen King ,
Michelle Castorena ,
Caitlin Hawkins ,
Cindie Wu  and
John A. Muckstadt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The public health response to an influenza pandemic or other large-scale health emergency may include mass prophylaxis using multiple points of dispensing (PODs) to deliver countermeasures rapidly to affected populations. Computer models created to date to determine “optimal” staffing levels at PODs typically assume stable patient demand for service. The authors investigated POD function under dynamic and uncertain operational environments.

Methods: The authors constructed a Monte Carlo simulation model of mass prophylaxis (the Dynamic POD Simulator, or D-PODS) to assess the consequences of nonstationary patient arrival patterns on POD function under a variety of POD layouts and staffing plans. Compared are the performance of a standard POD layout under steady-state and variable patient arrival rates that may mimic real-life variation in patient demand.

Results: To achieve similar performance, PODs functioning under nonstationary patient arrival rates require higher staffing levels than would be predicted using the assumption of stationary arrival rates. Furthermore, PODs may develop severe bottlenecks unless staffing levels vary over time to meet changing patient arrival patterns. Efficient POD networks therefore require command and control systems capable of dynamically adjusting intra- and inter-POD staff levels to meet demand. In addition, under real-world operating conditions of heightened uncertainty, fewer large PODs will require a smaller total staff than many small PODs to achieve comparable performance.

Conclusions: Modeling environments that capture the effects of fundamental uncertainties in public health disasters are essential for the realistic evaluation of response mechanisms and policies. D-PODS quantifies POD operational efficiency under more realistic conditions than have been modeled previously. The authors’ experiments demonstrate that effective POD staffing plans must be responsive to variation and uncertainty in POD arrival patterns. These experiments highlight the need for command and control systems to be created to manage emergency response successfully. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 2):S121–S131)

Keywords

emergency preparednessantibiotic prophylaxisdecision support modelstheoretical modelsanthrax
Type
Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 3 , Issue S2 , December 2009 , pp. S121 - S131
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Koh, HK, Elqura, LJ, Judge, CM, et alImplementing the cities readiness initiative: lessons learned from Boston. Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:40–49.Google Scholar
2.Wein, LM, Craft, DL, Kaplan, EH.Emergency response to an anthrax attack. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:4346–4351.Google Scholar
3.Hupert, N, Mushlin, AI, Callahan, MA.Modeling the public health response to bioterrorism: using discrete event simulation to design antibiotic distribution centers. Med Decis Making. 2002;22Suppl 5S17–S25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Hupert, N, Cuomo, J, Callahan, M, Mushlin, A, Morse, S.National Guidelines for Mass Prophylaxis Using Dispensing/Vaccination Centers (DVCs). Washington, DC: Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003.Google Scholar
5.Hupert N, Cuomo J. New Model Helps Hospitals and Health Systems Better Respond to Potential Bioterrorism. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Web site. http://www.ahrq.gov/news/press/pr2003/btmodpr.htm. Accessed September 11, 2009.Google Scholar
6.Aaby, K, Abbey, RL, Herrmann, JW, Treadwell, M, Jordan, CS, Wood, K.Embracing computer modeling to address pandemic influenza in the 21st century. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006;12:365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Lee, E, Maheshwary, S, Mason, J, Glisson, W.Large-scale dispensing for emergency response to bioterrorism and infectious-disease outbreak. Interfaces. 2006;36:591–607.Google Scholar
8.Buzacott, J, Shanthikumar, J.Stochastic Models of Manufacturing Systems. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1993.Google Scholar
9.Baccam, P, Boechler, M.Public health response to an anthrax attack: an evaluation of vaccination policy options. Biosecur Bioterror. 2007;5:26–34.Google Scholar
10.Brookmeyer, R, Johnson, E, Bollinger, R.Public health vaccination policies for containing an anthrax outbreak. Nature. 2004;432:901–904.Google Scholar
11.Wein, LM, Craft, DL.Evaluation of public health interventions for anthrax: a report to the secretary’s Council on Public Health Preparedness. Biosecur Bioterror. 2005;3:348–356.Google Scholar
12.Wilkening, DA.Sverdlovsk revisited: modeling human inhalation anthrax. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:7589–7594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Wilkening, DA.Modeling the incubation period of inhalational anthrax. Med Decis Making. 2008;28:593–605.Google Scholar
14.Hupert, N, Wattson, D, Cuomo, J, Hollingsworth, E, Neukermans, K, Xiong, W.Predicting hospital surge after a large-scale anthrax attack: a model-based analysis of CDC’s Cities Readiness Initiative prophylaxis recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:424–37.Google Scholar
15.Gross, D, Harris, CM.Fundamentals of Queueing Theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.Google Scholar