A forecasting tool for a hospital to plan inbound transfers of COVID-19 patients from other regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In April 2021, the province of Ontario, Canada, was at the peak of its third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity in the Toronto metropolitan area was insufficient to handle local COVID patients. As a result, some patients from the Toronto metropolitan area were transferred to other regions. METHODS: A spreadsheet-based Monte Carlo simulation tool was built to help a large tertiary hospital plan and make informed decisions about the number of transfer patients it could accept from other hospitals. The model was implemented in Microsoft Excel to enable it to be widely distributed and easily used. The model estimates the probability that each ward will be overcapacity and percentiles of utilization daily for a one-week planning horizon. RESULTS: The model was used from May 2021 to February 2022 to support decisions about the ability to accept transfers from other hospitals. The model was also used to ensure adequate inpatient bed capacity and human resources in response to various COVID-related scenarios, such as changes in hospital admission rates, managing the impact of intra-hospital outbreaks and balancing the COVID response with planned hospital activity. CONCLUSIONS: Coordination between hospitals was necessary due to the high stress on the health care system. A simple planning tool can help to understand the impact of patient transfers on capacity utilization and improve the confidence of hospital leaders when making transfer decisions. The model was also helpful in investigating other operational scenarios and may be helpful when preparing for future outbreaks or public health emergencies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".