Management of hospital beds and ventilators in the Gauteng province, South Africa, during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted an observational retrospective study on patients hospitalized with COVID-19, during March 05, 2020, to October 28, 2021, and developed an agent-based model to evaluate effectiveness of recommended healthcare resources (hospital beds and ventilators) management strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Gauteng, South Africa. We measured the effectiveness of these strategies by calculating the number of deaths prevented by implementing them. We observed differ ences between the epidemic waves. The length of hospital stay (LOS) during the third wave was lower than the first two waves. The median of the LOS was 6.73 days, 6.63 days and 6.78 days for the first, second and third wave, respectively. A combination of public and private sector provided hospital care to COVID-19 patients requiring ward and Intensive Care Units (ICU) beds. The private sector provided 88.4% of High care (HC)/ICU beds and 49.4% of ward beds, 73.9% and 51.4%, 71.8% and 58.3% during the first, second and third wave, respectively. Our simulation results showed that with a high maximum capacity, i.e., 10,000 general and isolation ward beds, 4,000 high care and ICU beds and 1,200 ventilators, increasing the resource capacity allocated to COVID- 19 patients by 25% was enough to maintain bed availability throughout the epidemic waves. With a medium resource capacity (8,500 general and isolation ward beds, 3,000 high care and ICU beds and 1,000 ventilators) a combination of resource management strategies and their timing and criteria were very effective in maintaining bed availability and therefore preventing excess deaths. With a low number of maximum available resources (7,000 general and isolation ward beds, 2,000 high care and ICU beds and 800 ventilators) and a severe epidemic wave, these strategies were effective in maintaining the bed availability and minimizing the number of excess deaths throughout the epidemic wave.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".