Background: To calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients. Methods: We analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators. Results: NHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated. Conclusions: Unless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.

Climate change poses an unprecedented challenge to population health and health systems' resilience, with increasing fluctuations in extreme temperatures through pressures on hospital capacity. While earlier studies have estimated morbidity attributable to hot or cold weather across cities, we provide the first large-scale, population-wide assessment of extreme temperatures on inequalities in excess emergency hospital admissions in England. We used the universe of emergency hospital admissions between 2001 and 2012 combined with meteorological data to exploit daily variation in temperature experienced by hospitals (N = 29,371,084). We used a distributed lag model with multiple fixed-effects, controlling for seasonal factors, to examine hospitalisation effects across temperature-sensitive diseases, and further heterogeneous impacts across age and deprivation. We identified larger hospitalisation impacts associated with extreme cold temperatures than with extreme hot temperatures. The less extreme temperatures produce admission patterns like their extreme counterparts, but at lower magnitudes. Results also showed an increase in admissions with extreme temperatures that were more prominent among older and socioeconomically-deprived populations - particularly across admissions for metabolic diseases and injuries.

The healthcare sector is one of the largest polluters in the UK, accounting for 25% of total emissions of carbon dioxide of the public sector. Ironically, it is the healthcare sector itself that is primarily affected by any deterioration in the environment affecting individuals’ health and their demand for healthcare. Therefore, the healthcare sector is a direct beneficiary of its own steps towards sustainability and is more and more viewed as the one who should lead the change. In this article, we first review the concepts of financial and environmental sustainability. Second, we discuss the existing evidence of sustainable changes within this sector. Third, we propose a simple adaptation of the classic cost-effectiveness analysis to incorporate carbon footprinting to account for these external costs. We illustrate our method using the case of in-centre versus home haemodialysis. We conclude that home dialysis is always a preferable alternative to in-centre treatment based on a cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, we discuss the limitations of our approach and the future research agenda.

In response to unprecedented surges in the demand for hospital care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, health systems have prioritized patients with COVID-19 to life-saving hospital care to the detriment of other patients. In contrast to these ad hoc policies, we develop a linear programming framework to optimally schedule elective procedures and allocate hospital beds among all planned and emergency patients to minimize years of life lost. Leveraging a large dataset of administrative patient medical records, we apply our framework to the National Health Service in England and show that an extra 50,750–5,891,608 years of life can be gained compared with prioritization policies that reflect those implemented during the pandemic. Notable health gains are observed for neoplasms, diseases of the digestive system, and injuries and poisoning. Our open-source framework provides a computationally efficient approximation of a large-scale discrete optimization problem that can be applied globally to support national-level care prioritization policies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen dramatic demand surges for hospital care that have placed a severe strain on health systems worldwide. As a result, policy makers are faced with the challenge of managing scarce hospital capacity to reduce the backlog of non-COVID patients while maintaining the ability to respond to any potential future increases in demand for COVID care. In this paper, we propose a nationwide prioritization scheme that models each individual patient as a dynamic program whose states encode the patient’s health and treatment condition, whose actions describe the available treatment options, whose transition probabilities characterize the stochastic evolution of the patient’s health, and whose rewards encode the contribution to the overall objectives of the health system. The individual patients’ dynamic programs are coupled through constraints on the available resources, such as hospital beds, doctors, and nurses. We show that the overall problem can be modeled as a grouped weakly coupled dynamic program for which we determine near-optimal solutions through a fluid approximation. Our case study for the National Health Service in England shows how years of life can be gained by prioritizing specific disease types over COVID patients, such as injury and poisoning, diseases of the respiratory system, diseases of the circulatory system, diseases of the digestive system, and cancer. This paper was accepted by Chung-Piaw Teo, optimization. Funding: G. Forchini acknowledges funding from Jan Wallanders and Tom Hedelius Foundation and the Tore Browaldh Foundation, funding from MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis [Reference MR/R015600/1], jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), under the MRC/FCDO Concordat agreement, part of the EDCTP2 program supported by the European Union; and acknowledges funding by Community Jameel. D. Rizmie acknowledges partial funding from the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis [Reference MR/R015600/1]. J. C. D’Aeth acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust [Reference 102169/Z/13/Z]. S. Moret acknowledges partial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) under [Grant P2ELP2_188028]. S. Ghosal was funded by the Imperial College President’s PhD Scholarship. F. Grimm was funded by the Health Foundation as part of core staff member activity. This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [Grant 102169/Z/13/Z]. Supplemental Material: The data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4679 .

Background: Planning for extreme surges in demand for hospital care of patients requiring urgent life-saving treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while retaining capacity for other emergency conditions, is one of the most challenging tasks faced by health care providers and policymakers during the pandemic. Health systems must be well-prepared to cope with large and sudden changes in demand by implementing interventions to ensure adequate access to care. We developed the first planning tool for the COVID-19 pandemic to account for how hospital provision interventions (such as cancelling elective surgery, setting up field hospitals, or hiring retired staff) will affect the capacity of hospitals to provide life-saving care. Methods: We conducted a review of interventions implemented or considered in 12 European countries in March to April 2020, an evaluation of their impact on capacity, and a review of key parameters in the care of COVID-19 patients. This information was used to develop a planner capable of estimating the impact of specific interventions on doctors, nurses, beds, and respiratory support equipment. We applied this to a scenario-based case study of 1 intervention, the set-up of field hospitals in England, under varying levels of COVID-19 patients. Results: The Abdul Latif Jameel Institute for Disease and Emergency Analytics pandemic planner is a hospital planning tool that allows hospital administrators, policymakers, and other decision-makers to calculate the amount of capacity in terms of beds, staff, and crucial medical equipment obtained by implementing the interventions. Flexible assumptions on baseline capacity, the number of hospitalizations, staff-to-beds ratios, and staff absences due to COVID-19 make the planner adaptable to multiple settings. The results of the case study show that while field hospitals alleviate the burden on the number of beds available, this intervention is futile unless the deficit of critical care nurses is addressed first. Discussion: The tool supports decision-makers in delivering a fast and effective response to the pandemic. The unique contribution of the planner is that it allows users to compare the impact of interventions that change some or all inputs.