Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-8sgpw Total loading time: 0.28 Render date: 2021-03-01T14:23:43.580Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2014

Jeffrey Michael Franc
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Translational Medicine, University of the Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Pier Luigi Ingrassia
Affiliation:
Translational Medicine, University of the Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Manuela Verde
Affiliation:
Translational Medicine, University of the Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Davide Colombo
Affiliation:
Translational Medicine, University of the Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Francesco Della Corte
Affiliation:
Translational Medicine, University of the Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Introduction

Surge capacity, or the ability to manage an extraordinary volume of patients, is fundamental for hospital management of mass-casualty incidents. However, quantification of surge capacity is difficult and no universal standard for its measurement has emerged, nor has a standardized statistical method been advocated. As mass-casualty incidents are rare, simulation may represent a viable alternative to measure surge capacity.

Hypothesis/Problem

The objective of the current study was to develop a statistical method for the quantification of surge capacity using a combination of computer simulation and simple process-control statistical tools. Length-of-stay (LOS) and patient volume (PV) were used as metrics. The use of this method was then demonstrated on a subsequent computer simulation of an emergency department (ED) response to a mass-casualty incident.

Methods

In the derivation phase, 357 participants in five countries performed 62 computer simulations of an ED response to a mass-casualty incident. Benchmarks for ED response were derived from these simulations, including LOS and PV metrics for triage, bed assignment, physician assessment, and disposition. In the application phase, 13 students of the European Master in Disaster Medicine (EMDM) program completed the same simulation scenario, and the results were compared to the standards obtained in the derivation phase.

Results

Patient-volume metrics included number of patients to be triaged, assigned to rooms, assessed by a physician, and disposed. Length-of-stay metrics included median time to triage, room assignment, physician assessment, and disposition. Simple graphical methods were used to compare the application phase group to the derived benchmarks using process-control statistical tools. The group in the application phase failed to meet the indicated standard for LOS from admission to disposition decision.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates how simulation software can be used to derive values for objective benchmarks of ED surge capacity using PV and LOS metrics. These objective metrics can then be applied to other simulation groups using simple graphical process-control tools to provide a numeric measure of surge capacity. Repeated use in simulations of actual EDs may represent a potential means of objectively quantifying disaster management surge capacity. It is hoped that the described statistical method, which is simple and reusable, will be useful for investigators in this field to apply to their own research.

Franc JM , Ingrassia PL , Verde M , Colombo D , Della Corte F . A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(1):1-7 .

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding: The simulation software used in this study (SurgeSim) is property of the primary author (JMF) and is subject to a registered trademark. No authors have received external funding for this study.

References

1. Hick, JL, Hanfling, D, Burstein, JL, et al. Health care facility and community strategies for patient care surge capacity. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;44(3):253-261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. American College of Emergency Physicians. Health care system surge capacity recognition, preparedness, and response. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45(2):239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Bayram, JD, Sauer, LM, Catlett, C, et al. Critical resources for hospital surge capacity: an expert consensus panel. PLoS Curr. 2013;5.Google Scholar
4. Handler, JA, Gillam, M, Kirsch, TD, Feied, CF. Metrics in the science of surge. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(11):1173-1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kaji, A, Koenig, KL, Bey, T. Surge capacity for healthcare systems: a conceptual framework. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(11):1157-1159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Schull, MJ, Guttmann, A, Leaver, CA, et al. Prioritizing performance measurement for emergency department care: consensus on evidence-based quality of care indicators. CJEM. 2011;13(5):300-309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Bogucki, S. Novel metrics for quality of hospital surge capacity. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(3):336-337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Ott, ER, Schilling, EG, Neubauer, DV, (eds). Process Quality Control: Troubleshooting And Interpretation of Data. Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA: American Society for Quality; 2005:628.Google Scholar
9. Franc-Law, JM, Bullard, M, Della Corte, F. Simulation of a hospital disaster plan: a virtual, live exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(4):346-353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Franc-Law, JM, Ingrassia, PL, Ragazzoni, L, Della Corte, F. The effectiveness of training with an emergency department simulator on medical student performance in a simulated disaster. CJEM. 2010;12(1):27-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gilbert, EH, Lowenstein, SR, Koziol-McLain, J, Barta, DC, Steiner, J. Chart reviews in emergency medicine research: where are the methods? Ann Emerg Med. 1996;27(3):305-308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Reliability of computerized emergency triage. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(3):269-275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Dong, SL, Bullard, MJ, Meurer, DP, et al. Predictive validity of a computerized emergency triage tool. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(1):16-21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment. START Triage Web site. http://www.start-triage.com. Accessed May 25, 2011.Google Scholar
15. de Boer, J, Debacker, M. A more rational approach to medical disaster management applied retrospectively to the Enschede fireworks disaster, 13 May 2000. Eur J Emerg Med. 2003;10(2):117-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. MedStatStudio Web site. http://www.medstatstudio.com/radmac.R. Accessed October 16, 2014.Google Scholar
17. Peng, RD. Reproducible research in computational science. Science. 2011;334(6060):1226-1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Maran, NJ, Glavin, RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation–a continuum of medical education? Med Educ. 2003;37(s1):22-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Carron, PN, Trueb, L, Yersin, B. High-fidelity simulation in the nonmedical domain: practices and potential transferable competencies for the medical field. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2011;2:149-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 14
Total number of PDF views: 123 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Simple Graphical Method for Quantification of Disaster Management Surge Capacity Using Computer Simulation and Process-control Tools
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *