The National Center for the Study of Preparedness and Catastrophic Event Response (PACER) has created a publicly available simulation tool called Surge (accessible at http://www.pacerapps.org) to estimate surge capacity for user-defined hospitals. Based on user input, a Monte Carlo simulation algorithm forecasts available hospital bed capacity over a 7-day period and iteratively assesses the ability to accommodate disaster patients. Currently, the tool can simulate bed capacity for acute mass casualty events (such as explosions) only and does not specifically simulate staff and supply inventory. Strategies to expand hospital capacity, such as (1) opening unlicensed beds, (2) canceling elective admissions, and (3) implementing reverse triage, can be interactively evaluated. In the present application of the tool, various response strategies were systematically investigated for 3 nationally representative hospital settings (large urban, midsize community, small rural). The simulation experiments estimated baseline surge capacity between 7% (large hospitals) and 22% (small hospitals) of staffed beds. Combining all response strategies simulated surge capacity between 30% and 40% of staffed beds. Response strategies were more impactful in the large urban hospital simulation owing to higher baseline occupancy and greater proportion of elective admissions. The publicly available Surge tool enables proactive assessment of hospital surge capacity to support improved decision-making for disaster response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:513–522)

Health care facility surge capacity has received significant planning attention recently, but there is no commonly accepted framework for detailed, phased surge capacity categorization and implementation. This article proposes a taxonomy within surge capacity of conventional capacity (implemented in major mass casualty incidents and representing care as usually provided at the institution), contingency capacity (using adaptations to medical care spaces, staffing constraints, and supply shortages without significant impact on delivered medical care), and crisis capacity (implemented in catastrophic situations with a significant impact on standard of care). Suggested measurements used to gauge a quantifiable component of surge capacity and adaptive strategies for staff and supply challenges are proposed. The use of refined definitions of surge capacity as it relates to space, staffing, and supply concerns during a mass casualty incident may aid phased implementation of surge capacity plans at health care facilities and enhance the consistency of terminology and data collection between facilities and regions. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 1):S59–S67)

No standard exists by which to evaluate a hospital’s compliance for the National Incident Management System (NIMS). The instruments available and in use today for the evaluation of hospital preparedness have variable adherence to the principles and elements set forth in NIMS. This is especially evident in the areas of command and management and communications and information management. The use of NIMS as a standard remains itself in question because of its lack of focus on the health care environment and incomplete list of pertinent elements. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 1):S83–S89)

Objectives: US hospitals are expected to function without external aid for up to 96 hours during a disaster; however, concern exists that there is insufficient capacity in hospitals to absorb large numbers of acute casualties. The aim of the study was to determine the potential for creation of inpatient bed surge capacity from the early discharge (reverse triage) of hospital inpatients at low risk of untoward events for up to 96 hours.

Methods: In a health system with 3 capacity-constrained hospitals that are representative of US facilities (academic, teaching affiliate, community), a variety (N = 50) of inpatient units were prospectively canvassed in rotation using a blocked randomized design for 19 weeks ending in February 2006. Intensive care units (ICUs), nurseries, and pediatric units were excluded. Assuming a disaster occurred on the day of enrollment, patients who did not require any (previously defined) critical intervention for 4 days were deemed suitable for early discharge.

Results: Of 3491 patients, 44% did not require any critical intervention and were suitable for early discharge. Accounting for additional routine patient discharges, full use of staffed and unstaffed licensed beds, gross surge capacity was estimated at 77%, 95%, and 103% for the 3 hospitals. Factoring likely continuance of nonvictim emergency admissions, net surge capacity available for disaster victims was estimated at 66%, 71%, and 81%, respectively. Reverse triage made up the majority (50%, 55%, 59%) of surge beds. Most realized capacity was available within 24 to 48 hours.

Conclusions: Hospital surge capacity for standard inpatient beds may be greater than previously believed. Reverse triage, if appropriately harnessed, can be a major contributor to surge capacity. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 1):S10–S16)

There is no widely accepted, validated framework of health care emergency management capabilities (HEMCs) that can be used by facilities to guide their disaster preparedness and response efforts. We reviewed the HEMCs and the evaluation methods used by the Veterans Health Administration, The Joint Commission, the Institute of Medicine Metropolitan Medical Response System committee, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Health and Human Services to determine whether a core set of HEMCs and evaluative methods could be identified.

Despite differences in the conceptualization of health care emergency management, there is considerable overlap among the agencies regarding major capabilities and capability-specific elements. Of the 5 agencies, 4 identified occupant safety and continuity of operations as major capabilities. An additional 5 capabilities were identified as major by 3 agencies. Most often the differences were related to whether a capability should be a major one versus a capability-specific element (eg, decontamination, management of resources). All of the agencies rely on multiple indicators and data sources to evaluate HEMCs. Few performance-based tools have been developed and none have been fully tested for their reliability and validity. Consensus on a framework and tools to measure HEMCs is needed. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3(Suppl 1):S45–S51)