Search

Abstract Objectives Patients are classified according to the severity of their condition and graded according to the diagnosis and treatment capacity of medical institutions. This study aims to correctly assign patients to medical institutions for treatment and develop patient allocation and medical resource expansion schemes among hospitals in the medical network. Methods Illness severity, hospital level, allocation matching benefit, distance traveled, and emergency medical resource fairness were considered. A multi-objective planning method was used to construct a patient allocation model during major epidemics. A simulation study was carried out in two scenarios to test the proposed method. Results (1) The single-objective model obtains an unbalanced solution in contrast to the multi-objective model. The proposed model considers multi-objective problems and balances the degree of patient allocation matching, distance traveled, and fairness. (2) The non-hierarchical model has crowded resources, and the hierarchical model assigns patients to matched medical institutions. (3) In the “demand exceeds supply” situation, the patient allocation model identified additional resources needed by each hospital. Conclusion Results verify the maneuverability and effectiveness of the proposed model. It can generate schemes for specific patient allocation and medical resource amplification and can serve as a quantitative decision-making tool in the context of major epidemics.

Background & Aims: In France, liver grafts that have been refused at least 5 times can be “rescued” and allocated to a centre which chooses a recipient from its own waiting list, outside the patient-based allocation framework. We explored whether these “rescued” grafts were associated with worse graft/patient survival, as well as assessing their effect on survival benefit. Methods: Among 7,895 candidates, 5,218 were transplanted between 2009 and 2014 (336 centre-allocated). We compared recipient/graft survival between patient allocation and centre allocation, considering a selection bias and the distribution of centre-allocation recipients among the transplant teams. We used a propensity score approach and a weighted Cox model using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. We also explored the survival benefit associated with centre-allocation grafts. Results: There was a significantly higher risk of graft loss/death in the centre allocation group compared to the patient allocation group (hazard ratio 1.13; 95% CI 1.05–1.22). However, this difference was no longer significant for teams that performed more than 7% of the centre-allocation transplantations. Moreover, receiving a centre-allocation graft, compared to remaining on the waiting list and possibly later receiving a patient-allocation graft, did not convey a poorer survival benefit (hazard ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.60–1.08). Conclusions: In centres which transplanted most of the centre-allocation grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates was not detrimental. Given the organ shortage, our findings should encourage policy makers to restrict centre-allocation grafts to targeted centres. Lay summary: “Centre allocation” (CA) made it possible to save 6 out of 100 available liver grafts that had been refused at least 5 times for use in the top-listed candidates on the national waiting list. In this series, the largest on this topic, we showed that, in centres which transplanted most of the CA grafts, using grafts repeatedly refused for top-listed candidates did not appear to be detrimental. In the context of organ shortage, our results, which could be of interest for any country using this CA strategy, should encourage policy makers to reassess some aspects of graft allocation by restricting CA grafts to targeted centres, fostering the “best” matching between grafts and candidates on the waiting list.