Forecasting ward-level bed requirements to aid pandemic resource planning: Lessons learned and future directions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been considerable research on how regional and country-level forecasting can be used to anticipate required hospital resources. We add to and build on this work by focusing on ward-level forecasting and planning tools for hospital staff during the pandemic. We present an assessment, validation, and deployment of a working prototype forecasting tool used within a modified Traffic Control Bundling (TCB) protocol for resource planning during the pandemic. We compare statistical and machine learning forecasting methods and their accuracy at one of the largest hospitals (Vancouver General Hospital) in Canada against a medium-sized hospital (St. Paul's Hospital) in Vancouver, Canada through the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of British Columbia. Our results confirm that traditional statistical and machine learning (ML) forecasting methods can provide valuable ward-level forecasting to aid in decision-making for pandemic resource planning. Using point forecasts with upper 95% prediction intervals, such forecasting methods would have provided better accuracy in anticipating required beds on COVID-19 hospital units than ward-level capacity decisions made by hospital staff. We have integrated our methodology into a publicly available online tool that operationalizes ward-level forecasting to aid with capacity planning decisions. Importantly, hospital staff can use this tool to translate forecasts into better patient care, less burnout, and improved planning for all hospital resources during pandemics.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 it