Systematic Review of Strategies to Manage and Allocate Scarce Resources During Mass Casualty Events

Published In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, v. 61, no. 6, June 2013, p. 677-689, 689.e1-689.e101

Posted on on January 01, 2013

by Justin W. Timbie, Jeanne S. Ringel, D. Steven Fox, Francesca Pillemer, Daniel A. Waxman, Melinda Moore, Cynthia K. Hansen, Ann R. Knebel, Richard Ricciardi, Arthur L. Kellermann

Read More

Access further information on this document at Elsevier

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Efficient management and allocation of scarce medical resources can improve outcomes for victims of mass casualty events. However, the effectiveness of specific strategies has never been systematically reviewed. We analyze published evidence on strategies to optimize the management and allocation of scarce resources across a wide range of mass casualty event contexts and study designs. METHODS: Our literature search included MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1990 through late 2011. We also searched the gray literature, using the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report and key Web sites. We included both English- and foreign-language articles. We included studies that evaluated strategies used in actual mass casualty events or tested through drills, exercises, or computer simulations. We excluded studies that lacked a comparison group or did not report quantitative outcomes. Data extraction, quality assessment, and strength of evidence ratings were conducted by a single researcher and reviewed by a second; discrepancies were reconciled by the 2 reviewers. Because of heterogeneity in outcome measures, we qualitatively synthesized findings within categories of strategies. RESULTS: From 5,716 potentially relevant citations, 74 studies met inclusion criteria. Strategies included reducing demand for health care services (18 studies), optimizing use of existing resources (50), augmenting existing resources (5), implementing crisis standards of care (5), and multiple categories (4). The evidence was sufficient to form conclusions on 2 strategies, although the strength of evidence was rated as low. First, as a strategy to reduce demand for health care services, points of dispensing can be used to efficiently distribute biological countermeasures after a bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic, and their organization influences speed of distribution. Second, as a strategy to optimize use of existing resources, commonly used field triage systems do not perform consistently during actual mass casualty events. The number of high-quality studies addressing other strategies was insufficient to support conclusions about their effectiveness because of differences in study context, comparison groups, and outcome measures. Our literature search may have missed key resource management and allocation strategies because of their extreme heterogeneity. Interrater reliability was not assessed for quality assessments or strength of evidence ratings. Publication bias is likely, given the large number of studies reporting positive findings. CONCLUSION: The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.