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

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-305
Number of pages305
JournalUnknown Journal
Issue number207
StatePublished - Jun 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mass Casualty Incidents
Resource Allocation
Consensus
Mandrillus
Triage
Health Facilities
Pandemics
Research
Computer Simulation
Human Influenza
Hospitalization
Nursing
Language
Research Personnel
Medicine
Organizations
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Timbie, J. W., Ringel, J. S., Fox, D. S., Waxman, D. A., Pillemer, F., Carey, C., ... Kellermann, A. L. (2012). Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events. Unknown Journal, (207), 1-305.

Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events. / Timbie, Justin W.; Ringel, Jeanne S.; Fox, D. Steven; Waxman, Daniel A.; Pillemer, Francesca; Carey, Christine; Moore, Melinda; Karir, Veena; Johnson, Tiffani J.; Iyer, Neema; Hu, Jianhui; Shanman, Roberta; Larkin, Jody Wozar; Timmer, Martha; Motala, Aneesa; Perry, Tanja R.; Newberry, Sydne; Kellermann, Arthur L.

In: Unknown Journal, No. 207, 06.2012, p. 1-305.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Timbie, JW, Ringel, JS, Fox, DS, Waxman, DA, Pillemer, F, Carey, C, Moore, M, Karir, V, Johnson, TJ, Iyer, N, Hu, J, Shanman, R, Larkin, JW, Timmer, M, Motala, A, Perry, TR, Newberry, S & Kellermann, AL 2012, 'Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.', Unknown Journal, no. 207, pp. 1-305.
Timbie JW, Ringel JS, Fox DS, Waxman DA, Pillemer F, Carey C et al. Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events. Unknown Journal. 2012 Jun;(207):1-305.
Timbie, Justin W. ; Ringel, Jeanne S. ; Fox, D. Steven ; Waxman, Daniel A. ; Pillemer, Francesca ; Carey, Christine ; Moore, Melinda ; Karir, Veena ; Johnson, Tiffani J. ; Iyer, Neema ; Hu, Jianhui ; Shanman, Roberta ; Larkin, Jody Wozar ; Timmer, Martha ; Motala, Aneesa ; Perry, Tanja R. ; Newberry, Sydne ; Kellermann, Arthur L. / Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events. In: Unknown Journal. 2012 ; No. 207. pp. 1-305.
@article{2d7fded1ae9348d186c4ddb0a731749a,
title = "Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.",
abstract = "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? We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science{\circledR}, 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. 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. 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. 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.",
author = "Timbie, {Justin W.} and Ringel, {Jeanne S.} and Fox, {D. Steven} and Waxman, {Daniel A.} and Francesca Pillemer and Christine Carey and Melinda Moore and Veena Karir and Johnson, {Tiffani J.} and Neema Iyer and Jianhui Hu and Roberta Shanman and Larkin, {Jody Wozar} and Martha Timmer and Aneesa Motala and Perry, {Tanja R.} and Sydne Newberry and Kellermann, {Arthur L.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--305",
journal = "Hematology / the Education Program of the American Society of Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program",
issn = "1662-5161",
publisher = "Frontiers Research Foundation",
number = "207",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.

AU - Timbie, Justin W.

AU - Ringel, Jeanne S.

AU - Fox, D. Steven

AU - Waxman, Daniel A.

AU - Pillemer, Francesca

AU - Carey, Christine

AU - Moore, Melinda

AU - Karir, Veena

AU - Johnson, Tiffani J.

AU - Iyer, Neema

AU - Hu, Jianhui

AU - Shanman, Roberta

AU - Larkin, Jody Wozar

AU - Timmer, Martha

AU - Motala, Aneesa

AU - Perry, Tanja R.

AU - Newberry, Sydne

AU - Kellermann, Arthur L.

PY - 2012/6

Y1 - 2012/6

N2 - 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

AB - 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? 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. 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. 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. 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897018942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897018942&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 24422904

AN - SCOPUS:84897018942

SP - 1

EP - 305

JO - Hematology / the Education Program of the American Society of Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program

JF - Hematology / the Education Program of the American Society of Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program

SN - 1662-5161

IS - 207

ER -