Assessing Surge Capacity for Radiation Victims with Marrow Toxicity

Application of a Human Factors Systems Approach to Healthcare Control Centres for Managing Patient Flow: A Scoping Review

Over the past decade, healthcare systems have started to establish control centres to manage patient flow, with a view to removing delays and increasing the quality of care. Such centres-here dubbed Healthcare Capacity Command/Coordination Centres (HCCCs)-are a challenge to design and operate. Broad-ranging surveys of HCCCs have been lacking, and design for their human users is only starting to be addressed. In this review we identified 73 papers describing different kinds of HCCCs, classifying them according to whether they describe virtual or physical control centres, the kinds of situations they handle, and the different levels of Rasmussen's [1] risk management framework that they integrate. Most of the papers (71%) describe physical HCCCs established as control centres, whereas 29% of the papers describe virtual HCCCs staffed by stakeholders in separate locations. Principal functions of the HCCCs described are categorised as business as usual (BAU) (48%), surge management (15%), emergency response (18%), and mass casualty management (19%). The organisation layers that the HCCCs incorporate are classified according to the risk management framework; HCCCs managing BAU involve lower levels of the framework, whereas HCCCs handling the more emergent functions involve all levels. Major challenges confronting HCCCs include the dissemination of information about healthcare system status, and the management of perspectives and goals from different parts of the healthcare system. HCCCs that take the form of physical control centres are just starting to be analysed using human factors principles that will make staff more effective and productive at managing patient flow.

Major Incident Hospital Simulations in Hospital Based Health Care: A Scoping Review

Major incidents are occurring in increasing frequency, and place significant stress on existing health-care systems. Simulation is often used to evaluate and improve the capacity of health systems to respond to these incidents, although this is difficult to evaluate. A scoping review was performed, searching 2 databases (PubMed, CINAHL) following PRISMA guidelines. The eligibility criteria included studies addressing whole hospital simulation, published in English after 2000, and interventional or observational research. Exclusion criteria included studies limited to single departments or prehospital conditions, pure computer modelling and dissimilar health systems to Australia. After exclusions, 11 relevant studies were included. These studies assessed various types of simulation, from tabletop exercises to multihospital events, with various outcome measures. The studies were highly heterogenous and assessed as representing variable levels of evidence. In general, all articles had positive conclusions with respect to the use of major incidence simulations. Several benefits were identified, and areas of improvement for the future were highlighted. Benefits included improved understanding of existing Major Incident Response Plans and familiarity with the necessary paradigm shifts of resource management in such events. However, overall this scoping review was unable to make definitive conclusions due to a low level of evidence and lack of validated evaluation.

Making the Case for Absorbed Radiation Response Biodosimetry - Utility of a High-Throughput Biodosimetry System

There is an unmet need to provide medical personnel with a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biodosimetry method for quantifying individualized absorbed dose response to inform treatment decisions for a very large patient population potentially exposed to ionizing radiation in the event of a nuclear incident. Validation of biodosimetry devices requires comparison of absorbed dose estimates to delivered dose as an indication of accuracy; however, comparison to delivered dose does not account for biological variability or an individual's radiosensitivity. As there is no FDA-cleared gene-expression-based biodosimetry method for determining biological response to radiation, results from accuracy comparisons to delivered dose yield relatively wide tolerance intervals or uncertainty. The Arizona State University Biodesign Institute is developing a high-throughput, automated real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based biodosimetry system that provides absorbed dose estimates for patients exposed to 0-10 Gy from blood collected 1-7 days postirradiation. While the absorbed dose estimates result from a calibration against the actual exposed dose, the reported dose estimate is a measure of response to absorbed dose based on the exposure models used in developing the system. A central concern with biodosimetry test evaluation is how variability in the dose estimate results could affect medical decision-making, and if the biodosimetry test system performance is quantitatively sufficient to inform effective treatment. A risk:benefit analysis of the expected system performance in the proposed intended use environment was performed to address the potential medical utility of this biodosimetry system. Uncertainty analysis is based on biomarker variability in non-human primate (NHP) models. Monte Carlo simulation was employed to test multiple groups of biomarkers and their potential variation in response to determine uncertainty associated with dose estimate results. Dose estimate uncertainty ranges from ±1.2-1.7 Gy depending on the exposure dose over a range of 2-10 Gy. The risk:benefit of individualized absorbed dose estimates within the context of medical interventions after a nuclear incident is considered and the application of the biodosimetry system is evaluated in this framework. NHP dose-response relationships, as measured by clinical outcome end points, show expected biological and radiosensitivity responses in the primate populations tested and corroborate the biological variability observed in the reported absorbed dose estimate. Performance is examined in relationship to current clinical management and treatment recommendations, with evaluation of potential patient risk in over- and underestimating absorbed dose.

Use of Growth Factors and Other Cytokines for Treatment of Injuries During a Radiation Public Health Emergency

Due to the threat of a radiological or nuclear incident that could impact citizens, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services tasked the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) with identifying and funding early- to mid-stage medical countermeasure (MCM) development to treat radiation-induced injuries. Given that the body's natural response to radiation exposure includes production of growth factors and cytokines, and that the only drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat acute radiation syndrome are growth factors targeting either the granulocyte (Neupogen^® or Neulasta^®) or granulocyte and macrophage (Leukine^®) hematopoietic cell lineages, there is interest in understanding the role that these factors play in responding to and/or ameliorating radiation damage. Furthermore, in an environment where resources are scarce, such as what might be expected during a radiation public health emergency, availability of growth factor or other treatments may be limited. For these reasons, the NIAID partnered with the Radiation Injury Treatment Network (RITN), whose membership includes medical centers with expertise in the management of bone marrow failure, to explore the use of growth factors and other cytokines as MCMs to mitigate/treat radiation injuries. A workshop was convened that included government, industry and academic subject matter experts, with presentations covering the anticipated concept of operations during a mass casualty incident including triage and treatment, growth factors under development for a radiation indication, and how the practice of medicine can inform other potential approaches, as well as considerations for administration of these products to diverse civilian populations. This report reviews the information presented, and provides an overview of the discussions from a guided breakout session.

Public health and medical preparedness for a nuclear detonation: the nuclear incident medical enterprise

Resilience and the ability to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear incident are enhanced by (1) effective planning, preparation and training; (2) ongoing interaction, formal exercises, and evaluation among the sectors involved; (3) effective and timely response and communication; and (4) continuous improvements based on new science, technology, experience, and ideas. Public health and medical planning require a complex, multi-faceted systematic approach involving federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments; private sector organizations; academia; industry; international partners; and individual experts and volunteers. The approach developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Nuclear Incident Medical Enterprise (NIME) is the result of efforts from government and nongovernment experts. It is a "bottom-up" systematic approach built on the available and emerging science that considers physical infrastructure damage, the spectrum of injuries, a scarce resources setting, the need for decision making in the face of a rapidly evolving situation with limited information early on, timely communication, and the need for tools and just-in-time information for responders who will likely be unfamiliar with radiation medicine and uncertain and overwhelmed in the face of the large number of casualties and the presence of radioactivity. The components of NIME can be used to support planning for, response to, and recovery from the effects of a nuclear incident. Recognizing that it is a continuous work-in-progress, the current status of the public health and medical preparedness and response for a nuclear incident is provided.

Surge capacity logistics: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Successful management of a pandemic or disaster requires implementation of preexisting plans to minimize loss of life and maintain control. Managing the expected surges in intensive care capacity requires strategic planning from a systems perspective and includes focused intensive care abilities and requirements as well as all individuals and organizations involved in hospital and regional planning. The suggestions in this article are important for all involved in a large-scale disaster or pandemic, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. Specifically, this article focuses on surge logistics-those elements that provide the capability to deliver mass critical care.

METHODS

The Surge Capacity topic panel developed 23 key questions focused on the following domains: systems issues; equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staffing; and informatics. Literature searches were conducted to identify studies upon which evidence-based recommendations could be made. The results were reviewed for relevance to the topic, and the articles were screened by two topic editors for placement within one of the surge domains noted previously. Most reports were small scale, were observational, or used flawed modeling; hence, the level of evidence on which to base recommendations was poor and did not permit the development of evidence-based recommendations. The Surge Capacity topic panel subsequently followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology to develop suggestion based on expert opinion using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

This article presents 22 suggestions pertaining to surge capacity mass critical care, including requirements for equipment, supplies, and pharmaceuticals; staff preparation and organization; methods of mitigating overwhelming patient loads; the role of deployable critical care services; and the use of transportation assets to support the surge response.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical care response to a disaster relies on careful planning for staff and resource augmentation and involves many agencies. Maximizing the use of regional resources, including staff, equipment, and supplies, extends critical care capabilities. Regional coalitions should be established to facilitate agreements, outline operational plans, and coordinate hospital efforts to achieve predetermined goals. Specialized physician oversight is necessary and if not available on site, may be provided through remote consultation. Triage by experienced providers, reverse triage, and service deescalation may be used to minimize ICU resource consumption. During a temporary loss of infrastructure or overwhelmed hospital resources, deployable critical care services should be considered.

A possible approach to large-scale laboratory testing for acute radiation sickness after a nuclear detonation

After the detonation of an improvised nuclear device, several key actions will be necessary to save the greatest number of lives possible. Among these tasks, the identification of patients with impending acute radiation sickness is a critical problem that so far has lacked a clear solution in national planning. We present one possible solution: the formation of a public-private partnership to augment the capacity to identify those at risk for acute radiation sickness.

Radiation injury after a nuclear detonation: medical consequences and the need for scarce resources allocation

A 10-kiloton (kT) nuclear detonation within a US city could expose hundreds of thousands of people to radiation. The Scarce Resources for a Nuclear Detonation Project was undertaken to guide community planning and response in the aftermath of a nuclear detonation, when demand will greatly exceed available resources. This article reviews the pertinent literature on radiation injuries from human exposures and animal models to provide a foundation for the triage and management approaches outlined in this special issue. Whole-body doses >2 Gy can produce clinically significant acute radiation syndrome (ARS), which classically involves the hematologic, gastrointestinal, cutaneous, and cardiovascular/central nervous systems. The severity and presentation of ARS are affected by several factors, including radiation dose and dose rate, interindividual variability in radiation response, type of radiation (eg, gamma alone, gamma plus neutrons), partial-body shielding, and possibly age, sex, and certain preexisting medical conditions. The combination of radiation with trauma, burns, or both (ie, combined injury) confers a worse prognosis than the same dose of radiation alone. Supportive care measures, including fluid support, antibiotics, and possibly myeloid cytokines (eg, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor), can improve the prognosis for some irradiated casualties. Finally, expert guidance and surge capacity for casualties with ARS are available from the Radiation Emergency Medical Management Web site and the Radiation Injury Treatment Network.