Identifying essential resource parameters for pandemic preparedness and response: an international Delphi study within the EU PANDEM-2 project

• Published in: BMJ open 2024-12, Vol.14 (12), p.e079609
• Main Authors: Beishuizen, Berend H. H., Stein, Mart L, Buis, Joeri S, Tostmann, Alma, Green, Caroline, Duggan, James, Connolly, Máire A, Rovers, Chantal P, Timen, Aura
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Consensus; COVID-19; COVID-19 - epidemiology; COVID-19 - prevention & control; Delphi method; Delphi Technique; Epidemics; Europe - epidemiology; Health Resources - supply & distribution; Hospitals; Humans; Infectious diseases; Literature reviews; Original Research; Pandemic Preparedness; Pandemics; Pandemics - prevention & control; Primary care; Professionals; Public Health; Questionnaires; Resource management; SARS-CoV-2; Supply & demand; Surveys and Questionnaires; Systematic review; Validation studies; Validity
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079609

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of healthcare and public health resource management, where scarcity impairs pandemic response resulting in increased disease transmission, delayed patient care and poorer health outcomes. In the EU PANDEM-2 project, we aimed to identify essential resource parameters for pandemic preparedness and response in the context of an emerging viral respiratory illness.DesignAfter performing a systematic literature review, we conducted a Delphi study consisting of a structured questionnaire and consensus round with two separate panels of European public health experts (PHEs) and clinicians, respectively. Resources were categorised as material (n=23), human (n=18) or pharmaceutical (n=12). Data were analysed descriptively for both panels.ResultsParticipants were 17 PHEs and 16 clinicians from nine countries. Consensus between the two panels was found on 40 resource parameters (17 material, 14 human, 9 pharmaceutical; 33 accepted and 7 rejected). Notably, clinicians selected three home care resources while PHEs did not, and PHEs selected two pharmaceutical resources which clinicians did not. No consensus was observed on 13 resources. Eleven additional resources were suggested and included (five for PHE and six for clinicians) among which were personal protective equipment for mobile teams, resources for primary care and resources related to mechanical ventilation.ConclusionsThe high level of consensus between the two expert panels indicates common goals in pandemic resource planning. The disagreement on 13 resource parameters reflects the different priorities between PHEs and clinicians in pandemic planning. This study has demonstrated the core components of resource modelling required for pandemic preparedness planning and shows the importance of consulting experts with both public health and clinical backgrounds. Including our proposed resources in pandemic models allows for more enhanced planning and training activities for future pandemics.