18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The demand for inpatient and ICU beds for COVID-19 in the US: lessons from Chinese cities

      Preprint
      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Sustained spread of SARS-CoV-2 has happened in major US cities. Capacity needs in Chinese cities could inform the planning of local healthcare resources.

          Methods:

          We described the intensive care unit (ICU) and inpatient bed needs for confirmed COVID-19 patients in two Chinese cities (Wuhan and Guangzhou) from January 10 to February 29, 2020, and compared the timing of disease control measures in relation to the timing of SARS-CoV-2 community spread. We estimated the peak ICU bed needs in US cities if a Wuhan-like outbreak occurs.

          Results:

          In Wuhan, strict disease control measures were implemented six weeks after sustained local transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Between January 10 and February 29, COVID-19 patients accounted for an average of 637 ICU patients and 3,454 serious inpatients on each day. During the epidemic peak, 19,425 patients (24.5 per 10,000 adults) were hospitalized, 9,689 (12.2 per 10,000 adults) were considered to be in serious condition, and 2,087 patients (2.6 per 10,000 adults) needed critical care per day. In Guangzhou, strict disease control measures were implemented within one week of case importation. Between January 24 and February 29, COVID-19 accounted for an average of 9 ICU patients and 20 inpatients on each day. During the epidemic peak, 15 patients were in critical condition, and 38 were classified as serious. If a Wuhan-like outbreak were to happen in a US city, the need for healthcare resources may be higher in cities with a higher prevalence of vulnerable populations.

          Conclusion:

          Even after the lockdown of Wuhan on January 23, the number of seriously ill COVID-19 patients continued to rise, exceeding local hospitalization and ICU capacities for at least a month. Plans are urgently needed to mitigate the effect of COVID-19 outbreaks on the local healthcare system in US cities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72 314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Are high-performing health systems resilient against the COVID-19 epidemic?

            As of March 5, 2020, there has been sustained local transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan. 1 Containment strategies seem to have prevented smaller transmission chains from amplifying into widespread community transmission. The health systems in these locations have generally been able to adapt,2, 3 but their resilience could be affected if the COVID-19 epidemic continues for many more months and increasing numbers of people require services. We outline some of the core dimensions of these resilient health systems 4 and their responses to the COVID-19 epidemic. First, after variable periods of adaptation, the three locations took actions to manage the outbreak of a new pathogen. Surveillance systems were readjusted to identify potential cases while public health staff identified their contacts. National laboratory networks developed diagnostic tests once the COVID-19 genetic sequences were published 5 and laboratory testing capacity was increased in all three locations, although expansion of the diagnostic capacity to university and large private laboratories in Japan is still ongoing. In Hong Kong, initially, only pneumonia patients without a microbiological diagnosis were tested, but surveillance has been broadened to include all inpatients with pneumonia and a purposively sampled proportion of outpatients and emergency attendees totalling about 1500 per day (Leung GM, unpublished). Japan's testing strategy has also evolved with diagnostic tests now offered to all suspected cases irrespective of their travel history; however, there are reports of cases that should have been tested but were not. Different strategies were used to selectively control travellers entering these locations. In Singapore, there was a stepwise series of decisions to restrict entry for anyone from mainland China and, more recently, from northern Italy, Iran, and South Korea. Hong Kong has imposed mandatory 14-day quarantine for everyone who enters from the mainland, and denies entry to non-local visitors from South Korea and Iran as well as the most affected parts of Italy. In Japan, there were travel restrictions on citizens from Hubei and Zhejiang provinces, and cruise ships with cases of COVID-19 were quarantined. Second, intragovernmental coordination was improved because health authorities drew on their experiences of severe acute respiratory syndrome during 2002–03 in Hong Kong and Singapore, H5N1 avian influenza in 1997 in Hong Kong, and the 2009 influenza H1N1 pandemic in all three locations. Hong Kong and Singapore began interministerial coordination within the first week, whereas Japan did this in early February when the operation to quarantine passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship was heavily criticised as inadequate, resulting in the widespread infections among crew and passengers. Third, all locations adapted financing measures so that all direct costs for treating patients are borne by the governments. In Singapore, the government pays the cost of hospitalisation, irrespective of whether the patient is from Singapore or abroad. In Japan, funding has been provided through routine financing and contingency funds. Meanwhile, Hong Kong is using routine financing that already pays for all such care. Fourth, the three health systems developed plans to sustain routine health-care services, but the integration of services has been problematic. In Japan, as the capacity at designated hospitals becomes overstretched, the coordination between hospitals and local government will be a major challenge. In Singapore, at the beginning of the outbreak, there were difficulties with disseminating information to the private sector. In all locations, intensive-care unit bed capacity is limited. © 2020 Roslan Rahman/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. Fifth, in all locations, critical care treatment and medicines have been available for patients with COVID-19, but adequate supplies of personal protective equipment in hospitals and face masks in the community are a key concern. In Japan and Hong Kong, hospital supplies are running low but have not yet impacted clinical management. In all locations, pressure on critical care treatment is likely if there is a sustained increase in cases of COVID-19. Sixth, in all three locations training and adherence to infection prevention and control measures in hospitals have largely been appropriate, but Japan could face a shortage of infectious disease specialists. Health-care staff are stretched in all localities, especially in selected designated hospitals. Long-term escalation in the need for health services will place pressures on health-care workers, and could at some point compromise the clinical management of people with COVID-19 and other patients. Seventh, management of information systems is comprehensive in all locations. In Singapore, there are almost daily meetings between Regional Health System managers, hospital leaders, and the Ministry of Health. However, in Japan information sharing across prefectures could be improved. The interoperability of systems between the government health department and public hospitals in Hong Kong is not optimal. Timely, accurate, and transparent risk communication is essential and challenging in emergencies because it determines whether the public will trust authorities more than rumours and misinformation. 6 Singapore health authorities provide daily information on mainstream media, the Ministry of Health has Telegram and WhatsApp groups set up with doctors in the public and private sectors where more detailed clinical and logistics information is shared, and authorities use websites to debunk circulating misinformation. Risk communications to establish trust in authorities has been less successful in Japan and Hong Kong. Finally, the political environment and differences in communities and their moods and values are important. The ongoing social unrest in Hong Kong has led to a breakdown of public trust with the government 7 and affected front-line health-care staff and the reception and acceptance of government information. 8 In Hong Kong and Singapore, rumours led to panic purchasing to the extent that shops ran out of some food and supplies. 9 In Japan, concerns related to the Diamond Princess cruise ship and the sudden announcement of school closures fuelled increased public anxiety. The three locations introduced appropriate containment measures and governance structures; took steps to support health-care delivery and financing; and developed and implemented plans and management structures. However, their response is vulnerable to shortcomings in the coordination of services; access to adequate medical supplies and equipment; adequacy of risk communication; and public trust in government. Moreover, it is uncertain whether these systems will continue to function if the requirement for services surges. Three important lessons have emerged. The first is that integration of services in the health system and across other sectors amplifies the ability to absorb and adapt to shock. 2 The second is that the spread of fake news and misinformation constitutes a major unresolved challenge. Finally, the trust of patients, health-care professionals, and society as a whole in government is of paramount importance for meeting health crises.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nonpharmaceutical interventions implemented by US cities during the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic.

              A critical question in pandemic influenza planning is the role nonpharmaceutical interventions might play in delaying the temporal effects of a pandemic, reducing the overall and peak attack rate, and reducing the number of cumulative deaths. Such measures could potentially provide valuable time for pandemic-strain vaccine and antiviral medication production and distribution. Optimally, appropriate implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions would decrease the burden on health care services and critical infrastructure. To examine the implementation of nonpharmaceutical interventions for epidemic mitigation in 43 cities in the continental United States from September 8, 1918, through February 22, 1919, and to determine whether city-to-city variation in mortality was associated with the timing, duration, and combination of nonpharmaceutical interventions; altered population susceptibility associated with prior pandemic waves; age and sex distribution; and population size and density. Historical archival research, and statistical and epidemiological analyses. Nonpharmaceutical interventions were grouped into 3 major categories: school closure; cancellation of public gatherings; and isolation and quarantine. Weekly excess death rate (EDR); time from the activation of nonpharmaceutical interventions to the first peak EDR; the first peak weekly EDR; and cumulative EDR during the entire 24-week study period. There were 115,340 excess pneumonia and influenza deaths (EDR, 500/100,000 population) in the 43 cities during the 24 weeks analyzed. Every city adopted at least 1 of the 3 major categories of nonpharmaceutical interventions. School closure and public gathering bans activated concurrently represented the most common combination implemented in 34 cities (79%); this combination had a median duration of 4 weeks (range, 1-10 weeks) and was significantly associated with reductions in weekly EDR. The cities that implemented nonpharmaceutical interventions earlier had greater delays in reaching peak mortality (Spearman r = -0.74, P < .001), lower peak mortality rates (Spearman r = 0.31, P = .02), and lower total mortality (Spearman r = 0.37, P = .008). There was a statistically significant association between increased duration of nonpharmaceutical interventions and a reduced total mortality burden (Spearman r = -0.39, P = .005). These findings demonstrate a strong association between early, sustained, and layered application of nonpharmaceutical interventions and mitigating the consequences of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic in the United States. In planning for future severe influenza pandemics, nonpharmaceutical interventions should be considered for inclusion as companion measures to developing effective vaccines and medications for prophylaxis and treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                medRxiv
                MEDRXIV
                medRxiv
                Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
                16 March 2020
                : 2020.03.09.20033241
                Affiliations
                [1. ]Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [2. ]Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
                [3. ]Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [4. ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
                Author notes

                Contributors

                All authors contributed to the study design, RL analyzed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors participated in the writing, reviewing, and editing of the manuscript.

                [* ]Corresponding author: rul612@ 123456mail.harvard.edu
                Article
                10.1101/2020.03.09.20033241
                7239072
                32511447
                f70a7e95-f823-43dd-8606-e067fe7c1961

                It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                outbreak,emerging infectious disease,coronavirus,disease control,nonpharmaceutical interventions,critical care,hospitalization,vulnerable populations

                Comments

                Comment on this article