Equitable Optimization of Patient Re-allocation and Temporary Facility Placement to Maximize Critical Care System Resilience in Disasters

End-stage renal disease patients face a complicated sociomedical situation and rely on various forms of infrastructure for life-sustaining treatment. Disruption of these infrastructures during disasters poses a major threat to their lives. To improve patient access to dialysis treatment, there is a need to assess the potential threat to critical care facilities from hazardous events. In this study, we propose optimization models to solve critical care system resilience problems including patient and medical resource allocation. We use human mobility data in the context of Harris County (Texas) to assess patient access to critical care facilities, dialysis centers in this study, under the simulated hazard impacts, and we propose models for patient re-allocation and temporary medical facility placement to improve critical care system resilience in an equitable manner. The results show (1) the capability of the optimization model in efficient patient re-allocation to alleviate disrupted access to dialysis facilities; (2) the importance of large facilities in maintaining the functioning of the system. The critical care system, particularly the network of dialysis centers, is heavily reliant on a few larger facilities, making it susceptible to targeted disruption. (3) The consideration of equity in the optimization model formulation reduces access loss for vulnerable populations in the simulated scenarios. (4) The proposed temporary facilities placement could improve access for the vulnerable population, thereby improving the equity of access to critical care facilities in disaster. The proposed patient re-allocation model and temporary facilities placement can serve as a data-driven and analytic-based decision support tool for public health and emergency management plans to reduce the loss of access and disrupted access to critical care facilities and would reduce the dire social costs.
Comment: 21 pages, 9 figures