Systematic Review of Strategies to Manage and Allocate Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events

RAND, Santa Monica, CA. Electronic address: .
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.68). 03/2013; 61(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.02.005
Source: PubMed


Study objective:
Efficient management and allocation of scarce medical resources can improve outcomes for victims of mass casualty events. However, the effectiveness of specific strategies has never been systematically reviewed. We analyze published evidence on strategies to optimize the management and allocation of scarce resources across a wide range of mass casualty event contexts and study designs.

Our literature search included MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1990 through late 2011. We also searched the gray literature, using the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report and key Web sites. We included both English- and foreign-language articles. We included studies that evaluated strategies used in actual mass casualty events or tested through drills, exercises, or computer simulations. We excluded studies that lacked a comparison group or did not report quantitative outcomes. Data extraction, quality assessment, and strength of evidence ratings were conducted by a single researcher and reviewed by a second; discrepancies were reconciled by the 2 reviewers. Because of heterogeneity in outcome measures, we qualitatively synthesized findings within categories of strategies.

From 5,716 potentially relevant citations, 74 studies met inclusion criteria. Strategies included reducing demand for health care services (18 studies), optimizing use of existing resources (50), augmenting existing resources (5), implementing crisis standards of care (5), and multiple categories (4). The evidence was sufficient to form conclusions on 2 strategies, although the strength of evidence was rated as low. First, as a strategy to reduce demand for health care services, points of dispensing can be used to efficiently distribute biological countermeasures after a bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic, and their organization influences speed of distribution. Second, as a strategy to optimize use of existing resources, commonly used field triage systems do not perform consistently during actual mass casualty events. The number of high-quality studies addressing other strategies was insufficient to support conclusions about their effectiveness because of differences in study context, comparison groups, and outcome measures. Our literature search may have missed key resource management and allocation strategies because of their extreme heterogeneity. Interrater reliability was not assessed for quality assessments or strength of evidence ratings. Publication bias is likely, given the large number of studies reporting positive findings.

The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.

Download full-text


Available from: Cynthia Hansen, Apr 08, 2015
111 Reads
  • Source
    • "Planning assumptions for the potential percentages of casualties in each category[1,4] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major short-notice or sudden impact incidents, which result in a large number of casualties, are rare events. However health services must be prepared to respond to such events appropriately. In the United Kingdom (UK), a mass casualties incident is when the normal response of several National Health Service organizations to a major incident, has to be supported with extraordinary measures. Having the right type and quantity of clinical equipment is essential, but planning for such emergencies is challenging. To date, the equipment stored for such events has been selected on the basis of local clinical judgment and has evolved without an explicit evidence-base. This has resulted in considerable variations in the types and quantities of clinical equipment being stored in different locations. This study aimed to develop an expert consensus opinion of the essential items and minimum quantities of clinical equipment that is required to treat 100 people at the scene of a big bang mass casualties event. A three round modified Delphi study was conducted with 32 experts using a specifically developed web-based platform. Individuals were invited to participate if they had personal clinical experience of providing a pre-hospital emergency medical response to a mass casualties incident, or had responsibility in health emergency planning for mass casualties incidents and were in a position of authority within the sphere of emergency health planning. Each item's importance was measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The quantity of items required was measured numerically. Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistics. Experts achieved consensus on a total of 134 items (54%) on completion of the study. Experts did not reach consensus on 114 (46%) items. Median quantities and interquartile ranges of the items, and their recommended quantities were identified and are presented. This study is the first to produce an expert consensus on the items and quantities of clinical equipment that are required to treat 100 people at the scene of a big bang mass casualties event. The findings can be used, both in the UK and internationally, to support decision makers in the planning of equipment for such incidents.
    BMC Emergency Medicine 02/2014; 14(1):5. DOI:10.1186/1471-227X-14-5
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Violent trauma does not only affect conflict and postconflict regions, but increasingly industrialized nations afflicted by violence from terror attacks. We conducted a comparative health systems analysis, assuming that that health systems with various backgrounds might learn from each other's health systems challenges caused by violent trauma. During the tragedy of Beslan in the Russian North Caucasus in September of 2004, more than 1000 children with their families were taken hostage in a school. Over three days, 334 people were killed and many more injured. While immediate trauma care was offered to all victims, many suffered from more complex injuries or from blast injuries to the ear caused by indoor bomb explosions, which were left untreated due to the lack of regional capacity for the required specialized microsurgery. Most if not all victims suffered from mental trauma as a consequence of violence, which also impacted surgical care-seeking. In April of 2013, two improvised explosive devices detonated at the Boston Marathon, killed three victims and injured 264, more than 20 of them critically. As a consequence of previous terror acts with mass causalities, local hospitals were prepared with drilling and coordination among health facilities, responders and government agencies. Some injury patterns similar to those in the North Caucasus emerged in the aftermath of the event and need to be addressed by the health system. Trauma from violent conflict and terrorism creates similar challenges to health systems. Preparedness for mass causalities requires revision and coordination of available services, and may prompt the strengthening of existing health systems. Health professionals should encourage victims' representatives and citizen groups to assist with assessing the prevalence and burden of injuries, including mental trauma, and to facilitate connecting affected patients to health care. Awareness for late trauma sequelae, including mental health trauma, is essential to appropriately address victims' needs.
    Minerva chirurgica 06/2013; 68(3):275-80. · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:49 p.m. EDT, two improvised explosive devices detonated near the finish line of the 117th Boston Marathon. Patients were transported from the scene to several trauma centers, including the authors' institution. Plastic surgical assessment of patients began in the Emergency Department and then rapidly expanded as the scope of the incident became clear. Daily interdisciplinary meetings involving the acute care surgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and nursing services were convened in order to coordinate operating room schedules and treatment plans. An interdisciplinary weekly clinic continued until all patient goals had been reached. Twenty-four patients were treated at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center within the first 24 hours of the Boston Marathon bombing. Seven were triaged directly to the operating room from the Emergency Department. The Division of Plastic Surgery was directly involved with the care of 11 patients, all of whom were treated surgically within 24 hours of the bombing. Patients were aged 23 to 50 years old. All 11 patients sustained lower extremity injuries with gross contamination. Four patients also sustained significant upper extremity trauma. Injuries included extremity amputations and fractures, soft-tissue loss, impaction of nails and other debris, burns, ocular injury, and ruptured tympanic membranes. Twenty-four patients received acute care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center following the Boston Marathon bombing. Institution of dedicated interdisciplinary daily rounds, protected operating room block time, and joint follow-up clinic allowed for efficient early diagnosis and treatment of patients' injuries.
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 11/2013; 132(5):1351-63. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a5a3d9 · 2.99 Impact Factor
Show more