The Application of a Hospital Medical Surge Preparedness Index to Assess National Pandemic and Other Mass Casualty Readiness.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This article describes the use and findings of the Hospital Medical Surge Preparedness Index (HMSPI) tool to improve the understanding of hospitals' ability to respond to mass casualty events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. For this investigation, data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Dartmouth Atlas Project, and the 2005 to 2014 annual surveys of the American Hospital Association (AHA) were analyzed. The HMSPI tool uses variables from the AHA survey and the other two sources to allow facility, county, and referral area index calculations. Using the three data sets, the HMSPI also allows for an index calculation for per capita ratios and by political (state or county) boundaries. In this use case, the results demonstrated increases in county and state HMSPI scores through the period of analysis; however, no statistically significant difference was found in HMSPI scores between 2013 and 2014. The HMSPI builds on the limited scientific foundation of medical surge preparedness and could serve as an objective and standardized measure to assess the nation's medical readiness for crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and other large-scale emergencies such as mass shootings. Future studies are encouraged to refine the score, assess the validity of the HMSPI, and evaluate its relevance in response to future legislative and executive policies that affect preparedness measures.

Development of a Hospital Medical Surge Preparedness Index using a national hospital survey.

To generate a Hospital Medical Surge Preparedness Index that can be used to evaluate hospitals across the United States in regard to their capacity to handle patient surges during mass casualty events. Data from the American Hospital Association's annual survey, conducted from 2005 to 2014. Our sample comprised 6239 hospitals across all 50 states, with an annual average of 5769 admissions. An extensive review of the American Hospital Association survey was conducted and relevant variables applicable to hospital inpatient services were extracted. Subject matter experts then categorized these items according to the following subdomains of the "Science of Surge" construct: staff, supplies, space, and system. The variables within these categories were then analyzed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, concluding with the evaluation of internal reliability. Based on the combined results, we generated individual (by hospital) scores for each of the four metrics and an overall score. The exploratory factor analysis indicated a clustering of variables consistent with the "Science of Surge" subdomains, and this finding was in agreement with the statistics generated through the confirmatory factor analysis. We also found high internal reliability coefficients, with Cronbach's alpha values for all constructs exceeding 0.9. A novel Hospital Medical Surge Preparedness Index linked to hospital metrics has been developed to assess a health care facility's capacity to manage patients from mass casualty events. This index could be used by hospitals and emergency management planners to assess a facility's readiness to provide care during disasters.

Disaster Preparedness and Response for the Burn Mass Casualty Incident in the Twenty-first Century.

The effective and efficient coordination of emergent patient care at the point of injury followed by the systematic resource-based triage of casualties are the most critical factors that influence patient outcomes after mass casualty incidents (MCIs). The effectiveness and appropriateness of implemented actions are largely determined by the extent and efficacy of the planning and preparation that occur before the MCI. The goal of this work was to define the essential efforts related to planning, preparation, and execution of acute and subacute medical care for disaster burn casualties. This type of MCI is frequently referred to as a burn MCI."

Measuring healthcare preparedness: an all-hazards approach.

In a paper appearing in this issue, Adini, et al. describe a struggle familiar to many emergency planners-the challenge of planning for all scenarios. The authors contend that all-hazards, or capabilities-based planning, in which a set of core capabilities applicable to numerous types of events is developed, is a more efficient way to achieve general health care system emergency preparedness than scenario-based planning. Essentially, the core of what is necessary to plan for and respond to one kind of disaster (e.g. a biologic event) is also necessary for planning and responding to other types of disasters, allowing for improvements in planning and maximizing efficiencies. While Adini, et al. have advanced the science of health care emergency preparedness through their consideration of 490 measures to assess preparedness, a shorter set of validated preparedness measures would support the dual goals of accountability and improved outcomes and could provide the basis for determining which actions in the name of preparedness really matter.