| Literature DB >> 27983611 |
Hone-Jay Chu1, Bo-Cheng Lin2, Ming-Run Yu3, Ta-Chien Chan4.
Abstract
Outbreaks of infectious diseases or multi-casualty incidents have the potential to generate a large number of patients. It is a challenge for the healthcare system when demand for care suddenly surges. Traditionally, valuation of heath care spatial accessibility was based on static supply and demand information. In this study, we proposed an optimal model with the three-step floating catchment area (3SFCA) to account for the supply to minimize variability in spatial accessibility. We used empirical dengue fever outbreak data in Tainan City, Taiwan in 2015 to demonstrate the dynamic change in spatial accessibility based on the epidemic trend. The x and y coordinates of dengue-infected patients with precision loss were provided publicly by the Tainan City government, and were used as our model's demand. The spatial accessibility of heath care during the dengue outbreak from August to October 2015 was analyzed spatially and temporally by producing accessibility maps, and conducting capacity change analysis. This study also utilized the particle swarm optimization (PSO) model to decrease the spatial variation in accessibility and shortage areas of healthcare resources as the epidemic went on. The proposed method in this study can help decision makers reallocate healthcare resources spatially when the ratios of demand and supply surge too quickly and form clusters in some locations.Entities:
Keywords: floating catchment area; particle swarm optimization
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27983611 PMCID: PMC5201376 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13121235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Number of cases in dengue outbreak from week 31 to week 43.
Figure 2(left) Hospital network (level 1 (hospitals #4 and #5) indicates academic hospitals, and level 2 (hospitals #1, #2, #3, #6, and #7) means regional hospitals) and (right) patient patterns in Tainan City.
Figure 3Accessibility without (left) and with (right) capacity at week 1.
Figure 4Accessibility before the optimal design at week 1 (A); week 2 (B); week 3 (C) and week 4 (D).
Figure 5Accessibility after the optimal design at week 1 (A); week 2 (B); week 3 (C) and week 4 (D).
Regional standard deviation (SD) of accessibility before and after the optimal design.
| Week | Accessibility SD before Design | Accessibility SD after Design | Differences |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.22 | 0.13 | −0.09 |
| 2 | 0.21 | 0.13 | −0.08 |
| 3 | 0.16 | 0.11 | −0.05 |
| 4 | 0.22 | 0.16 | −0.06 |
| Average | 0.20 | 0.13 | −0.07 |
Supply before and after the optimal design.
| No. | Hospital Level | Original Supply | Optimal Supply at Week 1 | Optimal Supply at Week 2 | Optimal Supply at Week 3 | Optimal Supply at Week 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 74 | 45.5 | 48.8 | 48.8 | 51.6 |
| 2 | 2 | 79 | 44.5 | 49.4 | 48.4 | 66.2 |
| 3 | 2 | 160 | 90.0 | 126.0 | 73.9 | 111.9 |
| 4 | 1 | 106 | 148.5 | 136.4 | 141.8 | 142.2 |
| 5 | 1 | 65 | 160.0 | 159.5 | 160.0 | 160.0 |
| 6 | 2 | 87 | 104.5 | 73.1 | 121.5 | 61.0 |
| 7 | 2 | 152 | 130.0 | 129.8 | 128.6 | 130.0 |