Forecasting ward-level bed requirements to aid pandemic resource planning: Lessons learned and future directions
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".