• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Table 2Comparison of different point of dispensing strategies

SourceIntervention and Comparison GroupsFindings
Ablah, 201031Centralized POD model vs. Hybrid modelCentralized: 0.75 patients/minute → 45 patients/hour
Hybrid: 0.48 patients/minute → to 28.8 patients/hour
Koh, 200830(Centralized) POD dispensing vs. “push” method using mail carriersCentralized: 1,988 persons/hour, or 33/hour/staff person
Push: 3,833 persons/hour, or 120/hour/staff person
Lee, 200629One county using RealOpt software vs. seven counties not using the softwareUser: Was the only county to exceed 450 targeted households, and 50% greater throughput than next best county (not using software); qualitatively—most efficient floor plan, most cost-effective dispensing (lowest labor/throughput value), smoothest operations (shortest average wait time, average queue length, and equalized utilization rate
Nonusers: No county reached 450 targeted households; best one achieved 71% of target

POD = point of dispensing

From: Results

Cover of Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events
Allocation of Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 207.
Timbie JW, Ringel JS, Fox DS, et al.

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