Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
Anaesthesist ; 70(7): 582-597, 2021 Jul.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453677

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic the government of the state of Bavaria, Germany, declared a state of emergency for its entire territory for the first time in history. Some areas in eastern Bavaria were among the most severely affected communities in Germany, prompting authorities and hospitals to build up capacities for a surge of COVID-19 patients. In some areas, intensive care unit (ICU) capacities were heavily engaged, which occasionally made a redistribution of patients necessary. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For managing COVID-19-related hospital capacities and patient allocation, crisis management squads in Bavaria were expanded by disaster task force medical officers ("Ärztlicher Leiter Führungsgruppe Katastrophenschutz" [MO]) with substantial executive authority. The authors report their experiences as MO concerning the superordinate patient allocation management in the district of Upper Palatinate (Oberpfalz) in eastern Bavaria. RESULTS: By abandoning routine patient care and building up additional ICU resources, surge capacity for the treatment of COVID-19 patients was generated in hospitals. In parts of the Oberpfalz, ICU capacities were almost entirely occupied by patients with corona virus infections, making reallocation to other hospitals within the district and beyond necessary. The MO managed patient pathways in an escalating manner by defining local (within the region of responsibility of a single MO), regional (within the district), and cross-regional (over district borders) reallocation lanes, as needed. When regional or cross-regional reallocation lanes had to be established, an additional management level located at the district government was involved. Within the determined reallocation lanes, emitting and receiving hospitals mutually agreed on any patient transfer without explicitly involving the MO, thereby maintaining the established interhospital routine transfer procedures. The number of patients and available treatment resources at each hospital were monitored with the help of a web-based treatment capacity registry. If indicated, reallocation lanes were dynamically revised according to the present situation. To oppose further virus spreading in nursing homes, the state government prohibited patient allocation to these facilities, which led to considerably longer hospital length of stay of convalescent elderly and/or dependent patients. In parallel to the flattening of the COVID-19 incidence curve, routine hospital patient care could be re-established in a stepwise manner. CONCLUSION: Patient allocation during the state of emergency by the MO sought to keep up routine interhospital reallocation procedures as much as possible, thereby reducing management time and effort. Occasionally, difficulties were observed during patient allocations crossing district borders, if other MO followed different management principles. The nursing home blockade and conflicting financial interests of hospitals posed challenges to the work of the disaster task force medical officers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Decision Making, Organizational , Pandemics , Surge Capacity/organization & administration , Critical Care , Disease Management , Emergency Service, Hospital , Germany , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Nursing Homes , Patient Transfer , Research Report , Resource Allocation
2.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 117(4): 289-296, 2022 May.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193127

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, outbreaks in inpatient care facilities, which grow into a large-scale emergency scenario, are frequently observed. A standardized procedure analogous to algorithms for mass casualty incidents (MCI) is lacking. METHODS: Based on a case report and the literature, the authors present a management strategy for infectious MCI during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic and distinguish it from traumatic MCI deployment tactics. RESULTS: This management strategy can be divided into three phases, beginning with the acute emergency response including triage, stabilization of critical patients, and transport of patients requiring hospitalization. Phase 2 involves securing the facility's operational readiness, or housing residents elsewhere in case staff are infected or quarantined to a relevant degree. Phase 3 marks the return to regular operations. DISCUSSION: Phase 1 is based on usual MCI principles, phase 2 on hospital crisis management. Avoiding evacuation of residents to relieve hospitals is an important operational objective. The lack of mission and training experience with such situations, the limited applicability of established triage algorithms, and the need to coordinate a large number of participants pose challenges. CONCLUSION: This strategic model offers a practical, holistic approach to the management of infectious mass casualty scenarios in nursing facilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disaster Planning , Emergency Medical Services , Mass Casualty Incidents , Disaster Planning/methods , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Humans , Retirement , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL