Simulating approaches to emergency department pandemic physician staffing during COVID-19.

Q3 Medicine
Rohit B Sangal, Arjun K Venkatesh, Jeremiah Kinsman, Meir Dashevsky, Jean E Scofi, Andrew Ulrich
{"title":"Simulating approaches to emergency department pandemic physician staffing during COVID-19.","authors":"Rohit B Sangal,&nbsp;Arjun K Venkatesh,&nbsp;Jeremiah Kinsman,&nbsp;Meir Dashevsky,&nbsp;Jean E Scofi,&nbsp;Andrew Ulrich","doi":"10.5055/ajdm.2021.0391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>During pandemics, emergency departments (EDs) are challenged by the need to replace quarantined ED staff and avoid staffing EDs with nonemergency medicine (EM) trained physicians. We sought to design and examine three feasible ED staffing models intended to safely schedule EM physicians to staff three EDs within a health system during a prolonged infectious disease outbreak.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted simulation analyses examining the strengths and limitations of three ED clinician staffing models: two-team and three-team fixed cohort, and three-team unfixed cohort. Each model was assessed with and without immunity, and by varying infection rates. We assumed a 12-week pandemic disaster requiring a 2-week quarantine.</p><p><strong>Main outcome: </strong>The outcome, time to staffing shortage, was defined as depletion of available physicians in both 8- and 12-hour shift duration scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All staffing models initially showed linear physician attrition with higher infection rates resulting in faster staffing shortages. The three-team fixed cohort model without immunity was not viable beyond 11 weeks. The three-team unfixed cohort model without immunity avoided staffing shortage for the duration of the pandemic up to an infection rate of 50 percent. The two-team model without immunity also avoided staffing shortage up to 30 percent infection rate. When accounting for immunity, all models behaved similarly initially but returned to adequate staffing during week 5 of the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simulation analyses reveal fundamental tradeoffs that are critical to designing feasible pandemic disaster staffing models. Emergency physicians should test similar models based on local assumptions and capacity to ensure adequate staffing preparedness for prolonged pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":40040,"journal":{"name":"American journal of disaster medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of disaster medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/ajdm.2021.0391","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: During pandemics, emergency departments (EDs) are challenged by the need to replace quarantined ED staff and avoid staffing EDs with nonemergency medicine (EM) trained physicians. We sought to design and examine three feasible ED staffing models intended to safely schedule EM physicians to staff three EDs within a health system during a prolonged infectious disease outbreak.

Methods: We conducted simulation analyses examining the strengths and limitations of three ED clinician staffing models: two-team and three-team fixed cohort, and three-team unfixed cohort. Each model was assessed with and without immunity, and by varying infection rates. We assumed a 12-week pandemic disaster requiring a 2-week quarantine.

Main outcome: The outcome, time to staffing shortage, was defined as depletion of available physicians in both 8- and 12-hour shift duration scenarios.

Results: All staffing models initially showed linear physician attrition with higher infection rates resulting in faster staffing shortages. The three-team fixed cohort model without immunity was not viable beyond 11 weeks. The three-team unfixed cohort model without immunity avoided staffing shortage for the duration of the pandemic up to an infection rate of 50 percent. The two-team model without immunity also avoided staffing shortage up to 30 percent infection rate. When accounting for immunity, all models behaved similarly initially but returned to adequate staffing during week 5 of the pandemic.

Conclusions: Simulation analyses reveal fundamental tradeoffs that are critical to designing feasible pandemic disaster staffing models. Emergency physicians should test similar models based on local assumptions and capacity to ensure adequate staffing preparedness for prolonged pandemics.

模拟COVID-19期间急诊科大流行医师人员配置方法。
目的:大流行期间,急诊科(EDs)面临的挑战是需要替换被隔离的急诊科人员,并避免在急诊科配备非急诊医学(EM)培训过的医生。我们试图设计和检验三种可行的急诊科人员配置模型,旨在在长期传染病爆发期间安全地安排急诊科医生在卫生系统内的三个急诊科人员。方法:我们进行了模拟分析,考察了三种急诊科临床医生配置模式的优势和局限性:两组和三组固定队列,以及三组非固定队列。每个模型在有无免疫力的情况下进行评估,并通过不同的感染率进行评估。我们假设一场为期12周的大流行灾难需要隔离2周。主要结局:结果,人员短缺的时间,被定义为8小时和12小时轮班持续情况下可用医生的枯竭。结果:所有的人员配置模型最初都显示出线性的医生损耗,较高的感染率导致更快的人员短缺。无免疫的三组固定队列模型不能存活超过11周。没有免疫力的三队不固定队列模型避免了大流行期间人员短缺,直到感染率达到50%。没有免疫力的两队模式也避免了高达30%感染率的人员短缺。在考虑免疫力时,所有模型最初表现相似,但在大流行的第5周恢复到足够的人员配备。结论:模拟分析揭示了对设计可行的流行病灾难人员配备模型至关重要的基本权衡。急诊医生应根据当地的假设和能力测试类似的模型,以确保为长期流行病做好充分的人员配备准备。
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
American journal of disaster medicine
American journal of disaster medicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: With the publication of the American Journal of Disaster Medicine, for the first time, comes real guidance in this new medical specialty from the country"s foremost experts in areas most physicians and medical professionals have never seen…a deadly cocktail of catastrophic events like blast wounds and post explosion injuries, biological weapons contamination and mass physical and psychological trauma that comes in the wake of natural disasters and disease outbreak. The journal has one goal: to provide physicians and medical professionals the essential informational tools they need as they seek to combine emergency medical and trauma skills with crisis management and new forms of triage.
×
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