NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events

Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events

Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 207

Investigators: , PhD, , PhD, , MD, MS, , MD, , PhD, , MA, , MD, MPH, , PharmD, MS, , MD, , MPH, , MPP, , MLS, , MLIS, , MS, , BA, , BHM, , PhD, and , MD, MPH.

Author Information

Investigators: , PhD,1 , PhD,1 , MD, MS,1 , MD,1 , PhD,2 , MA,1 , MD, MPH,1 , PharmD, MS,2 , MD,3 , MPH,1 , MPP,1 , MLS,1 , MLIS,1 , MS,1 , BA,1 , BHM,1 , PhD,1 and , MD, MPH1.

1 RAND Corporation
2 RAND/University of Pittsburgh
3 RAND/University of Pittsburgh, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 12-E006-EF

Structured 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.

Contents

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10062-I, Prepared by: Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center, Santa Monica, CA

Suggested citation:

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. Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events. Evidence Report No. 207. (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10062-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-E006-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. June 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.

This report is based on research conducted by the Southern California–RAND Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, Md. (Contract No. 290-2007-10062-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the author(s), who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Funding to support Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response through an Interagency Agreement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Contract No. 290-2007-10062-I).

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

1

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www​.ahrq.gov

Bookshelf ID: NBK98854
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

Related information

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...