IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v32y2012i2p266-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Quantitative Analysis of Optimal Treatment Capacity for Perinatal Asphyxia

Author

Listed:
  • Alon Geva
  • James Gray

Abstract

Objective. In centers electing to offer therapeutic hypothermia for treating hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), determining the optimal number of cooling devices is not straightforward. The authors used computer-based modeling to determine the level of service as a function of local HIE caseload and number of cooling devices available. Methods. The authors used discrete event simulation to create a model that varied the number of HIE cases and number of cooling devices available. Outcomes of interest were percentage of HIE-affected infants not cooled, number of infants not cooled, and percentage of time that all cooling devices were in use. Results. With 1 cooling device, even the smallest perinatal center did not achieve a cooling rate of 99% of eligible infants. In contrast, 2 devices ensured 99% service in centers treating as many as 20 infants annually. In centers averaging no more than 1 HIE infant monthly, the addition of a third cooling device did not result in a substantial reduction in the number of infants who would not be cooled. Conclusion. Centers electing to offer therapeutic hypothermia with only a single cooling device are at significant risk of being unable to provide treatment to eligible infants, whereas 2 devices appear to suffice for most institutions treating as many as 20 annual HIE cases. Three devices would rarely be needed given current caseloads seen at individual institutions. The quantitative nature of this analysis allows decision makers to determine the number of devices necessary to ensure adequate availability of therapeutic hypothermia given the HIE caseload of a particular institution.

Suggested Citation

  • Alon Geva & James Gray, 2012. "A Quantitative Analysis of Optimal Treatment Capacity for Perinatal Asphyxia," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(2), pages 266-272, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:266-272
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11421527
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X11421527
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X11421527?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:32:y:2012:i:2:p:266-272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.