Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.

Justin W Timbie, Jeanne S Ringel, D Steven Fox, Daniel A Waxman, Francesca Pillemer, Christine Carey, Melinda Moore, Veena Karir, Tiffani J Johnson, Neema Iyer, Jianhui Hu, Roberta Shanman, Jody Wozar Larkin, Martha Timmer, Aneesa Motala, Tanja R Perry, Sydne Newberry, Arthur L Kellermann
{"title":"Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.","authors":"Justin W Timbie,&nbsp;Jeanne S Ringel,&nbsp;D Steven Fox,&nbsp;Daniel A Waxman,&nbsp;Francesca Pillemer,&nbsp;Christine Carey,&nbsp;Melinda Moore,&nbsp;Veena Karir,&nbsp;Tiffani J Johnson,&nbsp;Neema Iyer,&nbsp;Jianhui Hu,&nbsp;Roberta Shanman,&nbsp;Jody Wozar Larkin,&nbsp;Martha Timmer,&nbsp;Aneesa Motala,&nbsp;Tanja R Perry,&nbsp;Sydne Newberry,&nbsp;Arthur L Kellermann","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review sought to identify the best available evidence regarding strategies for allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events (MCEs). Specifically, the review addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are available to policymakers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (2) What strategies are available to providers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (3) What are the public's key perceptions and concerns regarding the implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? (4) What methods are available to engage providers in discussions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs?</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1990 through 2011. To identify relevant non-peer-reviewed reports, we searched the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report. We also reviewed relevant State and Federal plans, peer-reviewed reports and papers by nongovernmental organizations, and consensus statements published by professional societies. We included both English- and foreign-language studies.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Our review included studies that evaluated tested strategies in real-world MCEs as well as strategies tested in drills, exercises, or computer simulations, all of which included a comparison group. We reviewed separately studies that lacked a comparison group but nonetheless evaluated promising strategies. We also identified consensus recommendations developed by professional societies or government panels. We reviewed existing State plans to examine the current state of planning for scarce resource allocation during MCEs. Two investigators independently reviewed each article, abstracted data, and assessed study quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We considered 5,716 reports for this comparative effectiveness review (CER); we ultimately included 170 in the review. Twenty-seven studies focus on strategies for policymakers. Among this group were studies that examined various ways to distribute biological countermeasures more efficiently during a bioterror attack or influenza pandemic. They provided modest evidence that the way these systems are organized influences the speed of distribution. The review includes 119 studies that address strategies for providers. A number of these studies provided evidence suggesting that commonly used triage systems do not perform consistently in actual MCEs. The number of high-quality studies addressing other specific strategies was insufficient to support firm conclusions about their effectiveness. Only 10 studies included strategies that consider the public's perspective. However, these studies were consistent in their findings. In particular, the public believes that resource allocation guidelines should be simple and consistent across health care facilities but should allow facilities some flexibility to make allocation decisions based on the specific demand and supply situation. The public also believes that a successful allocation system should balance the goals of ensuring the functioning of society, saving the greatest number of people, protecting the most vulnerable people, reducing deaths and hospitalizations, and treating people fairly and equitably. The remaining 14 studies provided strategies for engaging providers in discussions about allocating and managing scarce medical resources. These studies did not identify one engagement approach as clearly superior; however, they consistently noted the importance of a broad, inclusive, and systematic engagement process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Scientific research to identify the most effective adaptive strategies to implement during MCEs is an emerging area. While it remains unclear which of the many options available to policymakers and providers will be most effective, ongoing efforts to develop a focused, well-organized program of applied research should help to identify the optimal methods, techniques, and technologies to strengthen our nation's capacity to respond to MCEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":72991,"journal":{"name":"Evidence report/technology assessment","volume":" 207","pages":"1-305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781211/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence report/technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review sought to identify the best available evidence regarding strategies for allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events (MCEs). Specifically, the review addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are available to policymakers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (2) What strategies are available to providers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (3) What are the public's key perceptions and concerns regarding the implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? (4) What methods are available to engage providers in discussions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs?

Data sources: We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1990 through 2011. To identify relevant non-peer-reviewed reports, we searched the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report. We also reviewed relevant State and Federal plans, peer-reviewed reports and papers by nongovernmental organizations, and consensus statements published by professional societies. We included both English- and foreign-language studies.

Review methods: Our review included studies that evaluated tested strategies in real-world MCEs as well as strategies tested in drills, exercises, or computer simulations, all of which included a comparison group. We reviewed separately studies that lacked a comparison group but nonetheless evaluated promising strategies. We also identified consensus recommendations developed by professional societies or government panels. We reviewed existing State plans to examine the current state of planning for scarce resource allocation during MCEs. Two investigators independently reviewed each article, abstracted data, and assessed study quality.

Results: We considered 5,716 reports for this comparative effectiveness review (CER); we ultimately included 170 in the review. Twenty-seven studies focus on strategies for policymakers. Among this group were studies that examined various ways to distribute biological countermeasures more efficiently during a bioterror attack or influenza pandemic. They provided modest evidence that the way these systems are organized influences the speed of distribution. The review includes 119 studies that address strategies for providers. A number of these studies provided evidence suggesting that commonly used triage systems do not perform consistently in actual MCEs. The number of high-quality studies addressing other specific strategies was insufficient to support firm conclusions about their effectiveness. Only 10 studies included strategies that consider the public's perspective. However, these studies were consistent in their findings. In particular, the public believes that resource allocation guidelines should be simple and consistent across health care facilities but should allow facilities some flexibility to make allocation decisions based on the specific demand and supply situation. The public also believes that a successful allocation system should balance the goals of ensuring the functioning of society, saving the greatest number of people, protecting the most vulnerable people, reducing deaths and hospitalizations, and treating people fairly and equitably. The remaining 14 studies provided strategies for engaging providers in discussions about allocating and managing scarce medical resources. These studies did not identify one engagement approach as clearly superior; however, they consistently noted the importance of a broad, inclusive, and systematic engagement process.

Conclusions: Scientific research to identify the most effective adaptive strategies to implement during MCEs is an emerging area. While it remains unclear which of the many options available to policymakers and providers will be most effective, ongoing efforts to develop a focused, well-organized program of applied research should help to identify the optimal methods, techniques, and technologies to strengthen our nation's capacity to respond to MCEs.

大规模伤亡事件中稀缺资源的分配。
目的:本系统综述旨在确定关于大规模伤亡事件(MCEs)中稀缺资源分配策略的最佳证据。具体而言,本文探讨了以下问题:(1)政策制定者有哪些策略可以优化mcce期间稀缺资源的配置?(2)供应商有哪些策略可以优化mcce期间稀缺资源的配置?(3)公众对mcce期间稀缺资源分配策略的实施有什么主要看法和关注?(4)在mcce期间,有哪些方法可以让提供者参与讨论制定和实施分配稀缺资源的战略?数据来源:我们检索了Medline、Scopus、Embase、CINAHL(护理和相关健康文献累积索引)、Global Health、Web of Science®和Cochrane系统评价数据库,检索时间为1990年至2011年。为了确定相关的非同行评议报告,我们检索了纽约医学院的灰色文献报告。我们还审查了相关的州和联邦计划、非政府组织的同行评议报告和论文,以及专业学会发表的共识声明。我们包括了英语和外语研究。回顾方法:我们的回顾包括了在真实的mce中评估测试策略的研究,以及在演习、练习或计算机模拟中测试的策略,所有这些研究都包括了一个对照组。我们单独回顾了缺乏对照组但仍评估了有希望的策略的研究。我们还确定了专业协会或政府小组提出的共识建议。我们审查了现有的各州计划,以检查在mcce期间稀缺资源分配的规划现状。两名研究者独立审查每篇文章,提取数据并评估研究质量。结果:我们纳入了5716份比较有效性评价(CER)报告;我们最终在评论中收录了170个。27项研究的重点是决策者的策略。在这一组研究中,研究了在生物恐怖袭击或流感大流行期间更有效地分配生物对策的各种方法。他们提供了适度的证据,证明这些系统的组织方式影响着分发的速度。该综述包括119项针对医疗服务提供者策略的研究。其中一些研究提供的证据表明,常用的分诊系统在实际的mce中表现不一致。针对其他具体策略的高质量研究的数量不足以支持关于其有效性的确切结论。只有10项研究纳入了考虑公众观点的策略。然而,这些研究的结果是一致的。特别是,公众认为,资源分配准则应在各卫生保健设施之间保持简单和一致,但应允许设施根据具体需求和供应情况作出分配决定的一定灵活性。公众还认为,一个成功的分配制度应该平衡确保社会运作、拯救尽可能多的人、保护最脆弱的人、减少死亡和住院治疗以及公平公正地对待人们的目标。其余14项研究提供了使提供者参与关于分配和管理稀缺医疗资源的讨论的策略。这些研究并没有确定一种敬业度方法明显优于其他方法;然而,他们始终强调广泛、包容和系统的参与过程的重要性。结论:科学研究确定最有效的适应策略在mce期间实施是一个新兴领域。虽然目前还不清楚决策者和供应商的众多选择中哪一个是最有效的,但正在进行的开发一个重点突出、组织良好的应用研究项目的努力应该有助于确定最佳的方法、技术和技术,以加强我们国家应对mcce的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信