Assessing the reliability of medical resource demand models in the context of COVID-19.

Background: Numerous medical resource demand models have been created as tools for governments or hospitals, aiming to predict the need for crucial resources like ventilators, hospital beds, personal protective equipment (PPE), and diagnostic kits during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the reliability of these demand models remains uncertain.

Methods: Demand models typically consist of two main components: hospital use epidemiological models that predict hospitalizations or daily admissions, and a demand calculator that translates the outputs of the epidemiological model into predictions for resource usage. We conducted separate analyses to evaluate each of these components. In the first analysis, we validated various hospital use epidemiological models using a recent validation framework designed for epidemiological models. This allowed us to quantify the accuracy of the models in predicting critical aspects such as the date and magnitude of local COVID-19 peaks, among other factors. In the second analysis, we evaluated a range of demand calculators for ventilators, medical gowns, and COVID-19 test kits. To achieve this, we decoupled these demand calculators from the underlying epidemiological models and provided ground truth data for their inputs. This approach enabled a direct comparison of the demand calculators, comparing them against each other and actual usage data when available. The code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13712387 .

Results: Performance varied greatly across the epidemiological models, with greater variability in COVID-19 hospital use predictions than for COVID-19 deaths as analyzed previously. Some models did not have any peaks. Among those that did, the models under-estimated date of peak approximately as often as they over-estimated, but were more likely to under-estimate magnitude of peak, with typical relative errors around 50%. Regarding demand calculator predictions, there was significant variability, including five-fold differences in predictions for gown models. Validation against actual or surrogate usage data illustrated the potential value of demand models while demonstrating their limitations.

Conclusions: The emerging field of demand modeling holds promise in averting medical resource shortages during future public health emergencies. However, achieving this potential necessitates focused efforts on standardization, transparency, and rigorous model validation before placing reliance on demand models in critical public health decision-making.