Hospital preparedness in epidemics by using simulation. The case of COVID-19

3.1 Population growth models

The simulation model needs to include a stochastic model representing the pandemic evolution to predict (simulate) the number of patients arriving at the health system. Because of their simplicity, we propose the use of PG models. A number of growth models are found in the literature, such as the models of Gompertz [59], Richards [60], Stannard [61], and logistic model and others [62]. They start with exponential growth but gradually decrease their specific growth rates. The equations that relate the number of cases in the population (infected, patients needing hospitalization, etc..) and the time are shown in Table 1.

In this section, we carry out two statistical analysis for elucidating the adequacy of the PG models to represent and predict the evolution of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The first analysis evaluates the capacity of the PG models to fit complete sets of real data representing positive cases registered in different countries. Specifically, PG models have been fitted to data coming from the 20 most-affected countries by COVID-19 on June 15, as it was recorded in Worldometer [63]. The parameter estimation of the PG models is done by minimizing the sum of squared errors. There are functions implemented in free software that perform this estimation of parameters, for instance, the curve_fit() function in the optimize module of SciPy in Python [64] or the growthrates package in R [65]. The fit quality is measured by the Mean Absolute Errors (MAE). Table 2 includes all MAE values calculated for each country and model. The best fits are marked in bold (differences less than 0,1% are not distinguished). Additional information in this table is the total population of each country and the total number of positive cases on June 15.

These results show that similar fitting quality of Gompertz, Richards, and Stannard models, while the Logistic PG model underperforms the other three.

The second statistical analysis is designed to test the predictive capacity in the short-medium term of the PG models. The accurate prediction of future cases of the disease is crucial for the accurate prediction of the resources needed. Three experiments have been carried out to determine which model has a better predictive capacity. For each country, the dates in which the data exceed 25%, 40%, and 65% of positive cases registered on June 15 are selected. The rationale behind this choice is the following: 25% represents an early stage of the pandemic but with enough information to fit the curves; however, when few data are available, they lie in the exponential growth phase and lead usually to overestimations of the maximum of the function. This problem is accentuated in countries where the pandemic has a strong impact at the beginning, such as in Spain or Italy. In Section 3.2 it is explained how we deal with this problem. In addition, the values 40% and 65% are chosen to observe how each model predicts as more information becomes available.

The prediction of the fitted curves for the next 5, 10, and 15 days is assessed by calculating the MAE. These time horizons are considered as sufficient for the hospital managers to adapt extra resources for new needs. As new positive case data is added every day, and predictions are refreshed also every day, the long-term predictive capacity of the model will not be analyzed. The results of these analyzes are collected in Appendix A. On the one hand, we present fits to the curves until the selected days, obtaining an MAE for each model and country. On the other hand, the tables of the MAEs made in the predictions are shown. To facilitate the comparison of results, MAEs are normalized by the total number of positive cases on the selected days. From these results, we can conclude that the Gompertz model outperforms in predictive capacity the other PG models.

Table 3 summarizes the relevant information from all the tables in Appendix A. It indicates the number of countries in which each model is the best in terms of predictive capacity (as before, differences smaller than 0.1% have been considered equal). It is observed that the Gompertz model is the one that more accurately predicts future values, specifically in all the situations analyzed except for one. For this reason, the Gompertz model is recommended to predict new cases of COVID-19.

3.2 Patient arrival pattern simulation

The Gompertz growth model can be used to simulate both the number of positive cases and the entry of patients to the health system. The parameters of the original equation of this model (Table 1) have a more mathematical than biological interpretation (a, b, c …), like most equations that describe a sigmoidal growth curve. Therefore, before using it in our modeling, it is convenient to carry out a transformation to easily interpret the results obtained in the fit. Zwietering et al. [66] rewrite the Gompertz growth model as it is shown in equation (1). where,

• e = exp(1)

• c(t) is the cumulative number of positive cases or hospitalized patients until time t.

• A is a parameter of the growth model that represents the total number of positive cases or hospitalized patients at the end of the outbreak.

• μ_m is the maximum specific growth rate of the curve.

• λ is the lag time, defined as the t-axis intercept of the tangent through the inflection point.

Once the curve c(t) is fitted, for example to cumulative hospitalized patients, it is used to simulate the number of new hospitalized patients of each of the following days. Let consider t_i and t_i+1 two consecutive days in the future, the number of expected arrivals for the day t_i+1 is calculated as c(t_i+1) − c(t_i). Then, the simulation model samples the number of hospitalized patients for that day t_i+1 from a Poisson distribution with mean c(t_i+1) − c(t_i). This procedure is applied to simulate the hospitalized patients each future day. The Gompertz curve is fitted each time a new datum is observed.

At the first stages of the outbreak could not be enough data to fit the Gompertz model, overall in terms of hospitalized patients. In this case, we propose two alternatives that rely also on the use of PG models:

The first one consists of fitting the growth model to cumulative positive cases registered in a greater area, for example, the whole country when only a region of it is considered. Two factors are required to transform the predicted positive cases of the greater area into arrivals to hospitals in the subarea: the first one is a population factor that relates the population of both areas (e.g. the region of Navarre in Spain represents the 1.3% of the whole country population), and the second one transforms the new cases into patients requiring hospitalization (at first stages about 40% of detected cases needed hospitalization). Denoting by f_g and f_h both geographic and hospitalization factors, and by C(t) the fitted Gompertz curve to the positive cases in the bigger area, then c(t) = f_gf_h C(t). Given that in this first period there is a data shortage, f_h can be estimated by experts according to data published in the literature referred to the behavior of the disease in countries where it is more spread. This indirect technique could be applied also to the detected cases in the same area and apply only the f_h factor.

Secondly, when the hospitalization cases begin to accumulate significantly (meaning the observed cumulative cases are starting its exponential growth) then we propose to fix (by expert opinion) the maximum population parameter (A in equation (1)) and to estimate the other two parameters by minimizing the sum of squared errors.

4.1 Hospital patient path

COVID-19 patients can access the health system in different ways: a person can be diagnosed with COVID-19 illness in a primary healthcare facility, in the hospital emergency department, in a nursing home, after undergoing a SARS-CoV-2 test control (as a Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test), etc. Depending on the severity of the illness the person is kept “isolated” at home or is admitted to the health care system as a COVID-19 patient, either in a hospital ward or in the ICU.

Treatment of COVID-19 patients requires dedicated resources, material, and personnel. We focus our study in the ward beds and ICU beds because they are scarce resources. Other necessary resources, as nurses and physicians, can be calculated from the number of required beds. The COVID-19 patient path through the hospital does not differ from other hospital patients. Fig. 1 shows the patient flow through the health system, highlighting the transitions between the hospital ward and the ICU. Patients can be admitted either into the ICU or into the hospital ward. A patient admitted to a hospital ward can be transferred to the ICU due to a health worsening. The discharge of the hospital ward is because of death or health improvement. Patients are discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward either because of death or because of health improvement.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 1

Representation of the COVID-19 patient flow in the health system.

4.2 Stochastic modelling of hospital length of stay

The following variables allow the modeling of the length of stay in the hospital:

• X₁, the length of stay of a patient in the hospital ward not needing the ICU

• Y, the length of stay of a patient in the ICU.

• W, time spent by a patient in the hospital ward before being admitted to the ICU.

• X₂, the length of stay of a patient in the hospital ward after being discharged from the ICU.

• X, the length of stay of a patient from its admission to a hospital ward or to the ICU until the discharge of the hospital facilities.

Besides, the following probabilities determine the patient-path through the healthcare facilities:

• P₁, the probability that a patient is admitted to the ICU.

• p_I0, the probability that a patient needing the ICU is admitted just after being detected positive. Then, 1 − p_I0 is the probability that a patient is admitted to the ICU after being admitted first to a hospital ward.

• p_WI, the probability that a patient admitted to a hospital ward ultimately needs to be transferred to the ICU. p_WI = p₁, (1 − p_I0)/(1 − p₁p_I0)

• p_IW, the probability that a patient is discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward. Then, 1 − P_Iw is the probability that a patient dies in the ICU.

The estimation of both the probability distributions and the set of probabilities depends on the available data, which, in turn, depends on the pandemic development stage. During the first stages of the outbreak, when no patient hospitalization data or very few exist the model uses the triangular distribution family. The triangular is a popular family to estimate the time to accomplish a task because it embodies the idea of ‘three-point estimation’ where subjective judgment is used to estimate a minimum, a ‘best guess’, and a maximum value of the variable [67]. In the case of variable X₁, these three values correspond to the minimum, most probable, and maximum times of hospitalization in a ward for patients not needing ICU, which are provided by expert opinion (hospital managers and the medical staff). Experts can rely on values reported in the literature corresponding to countries where the pandemic spread earlier (for example the China and the Italian situation are described in [68–71]).

As the pandemic progresses and there are more data on hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they can be used to estimate the probability distributions parameters. One main feature of these data is their high level of censorship; that is, only a small percentage of patients that have been admitted so far to the hospital ward and the ICU has been discharged after few weeks of the outbreak. This fact motivates the need for re-estimating the distribution fitting daily by adding the new data collected. The use of probability plots facilitates the selection of the parametric probability distribution family that best fits the data. The parameters of the selected family are estimated by fitting the updated health electronic recorded data on admission and discharge dates by the maximum likelihood method. Weibull and Lognormal distribution families have proved to be good probability models for the length of stay related variables, as we show in Section 7.

At the beginning of a new pandemic, there is insufficient knowledge of the illness and no effective treatments exist, as it has happened with the COVID-19 outbreak. As the medical and biological research progresses, new drugs and therapeutic protocols are discovered, which benefit the care of patients, affecting their length of stay in both hospital ward and ICUs. This observation reinforces the need for gathering every new data about patient admission and discharge to use them to update the estimation of the distribution parameters and bifurcation probabilities.

5.1 Entities, processes, events, and flowchart

DES model is defined by the set of state variables, which provide at any time a complete description of the simulated system, and the set of events, which modify the value of state variables. The simulation model represents the patient flow through the different ways of hospitalization, that is, the part inside the box with dashed lines in Fig. 1. In this subsection, we propose the state variables that describe the health system and a set of events grouped into three different categories.

Only one set of variables is considered in this model, which is composed of two variables, H = (H_w, H_I). These variables describe the number of patients hospitalized in hospital wards (H_w) and the number of patients in the ICU (H_I). Observe that the number of total patients admitted in the hospital (N) due to COVID-19 at time t is the sum of these two state variables (N = H_W + H_I).

There are three different types of events that modify through time the value of state variables. They have been classified according to how the value of N changes, if there is an increase, a decrease, or if its value does not change after the event occurs. The first set of events E_A are associated with the patient’s arrival times classified in hospital arrivals and ICU arrivals. In this group, we only consider external arrivals, i.e., patients who are not in the hospital and directly arrive after being detected with the disease. These arrivals occur as we mentioned in Section 3.2 distinguishing with a percentage what type of patients they are.

The second category of events E_B produces a decrease in the state variables. They are related to the end of the patient hospitalization time. In wards, we consider both discharges for improvement and death, but in ICU only death cases are included here. In this way, these events only reduce the values of H_W or H_I, and therefore the value of N decreases. In Section 4.2 it is explained how the length of stay is assigned to each patient, and therefore, the discharge times.

The third set of events E_c is associated with the transfer of patients between the hospital wards and the ICU, which can be bidirectional (see Section 4.2). On the one hand, a patient who is in the hospital may worsen his health of status and have to be transferred to the ICU. On the other hand, ICU patients who improve and are discharged do not go directly home but are first treated in wards. Observe that in both cases, only the values of H_W and H_I are affected, but the value of N remains constant since with these actions neither patients enter nor leave the system. Fig. 2 outlines the simulation model of the health system.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 2

Flow diagram of the health system simulation model. Three types of events are considered (patient’s arrival, patient’s discharge, and patient’s transfer).

5.2 How to get the simulation started?

The purpose of the simulation model is the short-term necessary resources prediction. Therefore, the precision of the predictions strongly depends on the model accuracy in both representing the health system’s initial state and the initial time evolution of the already occupied resources. Usually, this last aspect of the mathematical modeling is not such important when the simulation is intended to investigate the behavior of systems in the long term, in its stationary state, which is usually independent of the system’s initial state. However, when the simulation is used as a prediction tool to support tactical decisions, the initial state of the simulation model and the system dynamic at the initial moments are the main factors to determine the health system state in the near future. The number of patients in the hospital wards and in the ICU, as well as the available information about the time since their admission, define the initial state of the health-system simulation model.

The simulation clock is set to zero at the time of the EHR-file’s last update. Before that time, it is the past that can be reproduced by the simulator by reading the records in the EHR file, and ahead, it is the future that needs to be simulated. The transition from the past to the future is done at the moment the simulation starts, which requires to initialize the event calendar [67]. There are three types of events, admission to hospital, transferring between hospital facilities (ward and ICU) and discharge from hospital. The simulation of the event type “arrival of a new patient” was explained in Section 3.2. Now we expose how to simulate the other two types of events to those patients already admitted in the hospital at time zero.

The simulation of these events depends on the available information about the patients. Basically, the main difference is whether there is access to patient-level information or only aggregated information about daily admissions and discharges is available. Zero time for the simulation model is considered to be the end of the kth day of the pandemic. That is, the simulation model begins to simulate what will happen from day (k + 1)th, using the information collected during the first k days of the pandemic and considering patients admitted to the health system at the end of the kth day as the initial state. The following notation, together with the notation introduced in Section 4.2, is used in the subsequent analysis:

• H_Wk: the number of hospitalized patients in hospital wards at the end of the day k.

• H_Ik: the number of admitted patients at the ICU at the end of the day k.

• I_j and O_j number of new patients admitted, and number of patients discharged the day j, respectively.

They will refer to the hospital wards or to the ICU depending on the context of the analysis. u: an observation from a Uniform [0,1] random variable.

1. Information at the patient level available: The admission date of each hospitalized patient is known. Therefore, for each currently hospitalized patient the time s_t already spent at the hospital ward or the ICU is known.

   Patient admitted to the ICU: The discharge date is calculated by sampling from the random variable Y conditioned to a stay longer than, the number of days already spent at the hospital. Let y_t be a value sampled from the conditional distribution Y/Y > s_i, then the value y_i − s_i is the ICU discharge time simulated for patient i.

   Patient admitted to a hospital ward: A patient occupying a ward bed can ultimately be discharged from the hospital or be transferred to the ICU. The probability that a patient hospitalized for days is transferred in the future to the ICU, denoted by , is calculated by using Bayes theorem:

   Therefore, for each patient i, a random number u is used to classify each patient into one out of two categories: patient to be transferred to ICU, when , or patient to be discharged from the hospital, when .

   In the case of a patient transfer to the ICU, the event transfer time is simulated by sampling a value Wi from the conditional distribution W/W > s_i. The value w_i − s_i is the simulated transfer time from hospital ward to the ICU. Similarly, the discharge time from the hospital ward is simulated by sampling a value x_i from the conditional distribution X₁/X₁ > s_i, then the value x_i − s_i is the simulated discharge time.

2. The series of new admitted patients I_j, j = 1,…, k and the number H_Wk of hospitalized patients are known at the moment of running the simulation model. However, individual arrival dates are not known for the admitted patients and the method developed for the case A can not be applied.

   Let P_ij be the probability that a patient admitted the day i is discharged the day j, and q_ij the probability that a patient admitted the day i is discharged later than day j. The end of day k is the present time at which the simulation model is run. The probability that a patient arriving the day i is still hospitalized is q_ik. Every past day i, i = 1,k, I_i new patients are admitted, which account for patients of which H_Wk are still hospitalized. The method sketched in Fig. 3 selects H_wk patients out of by a sampling process without replacement that uses the set of probabilities {q_ik; i = 1,…, k}.

   The application of this method results in the simulation of the admission date of each admitted patient. Therefore, the simulation of the discharge and transfer events can be performed according to the method of case A.

   The probabilities q_ik are calculated for patients admitted in the ICU from the probability distribution of variable Y, and for patients admitted to a hospital ward from the probability distribution of variable X.

3. For each day j, j = 1,…, k, the number I_j of new admitted patients and the number O_j of discharged patients are known. We use this information (see Fig. 4) to estimate for each patient the probability of being one of the H_Wk admitted patients at the end of day k and the day of admission i. Once these probabilities are calculated, the procedures exposed in cases A and B can be applied.

   Using, as before, the notation p_ij for the probability of a patient being admitted the day i and discharged the day j, and q_ij for the probability of a patient being admitted day i and discharged later than day j, then the expected number of discharge patients the day j is and the observed number O_j. Let g_j be the factor verifying g_j , so that n_ij = g_jp_ijI_i is the updated expected number of patients arriving the day i that are discharged the day j.

   Similar calculation is performed for the number of admitted patients at the end of day k: is the expected number of admitted patients at the end of day k that arrived the day i and H_Wk the actual number of admitted patients. Let be the factor verifying , and therefore is the updated expected number of patients arriving the day i that still are hospitalized at the end of day k.

   The estimated new expected values n_ij, j = i,…, k and are used to rescale the probabilities q_ik: let y_t the factor satisfying that , that is, and then, ,. Therefore, is the updated estimation of the probability that a patient arriving the day i is still hospitalized at the end of day k.

4. Only the number H_Wk of hospitalized patients is known. This case happens when the forecasting of daily hospitalized patients is performed from the series of aggregated positive cases in the local area, c(t), and a hospitalization factor f_h is applied. In this situation the arrival date of the patients currently admitted at the hospital (end of day k) is simulated by first simulating the arrival of patients each day before (i = 1,…, k) and then by applying the method of paragraph B. The number of hospitalized patients each day i = 1,…, k is simulated by sampling values from a binomial distribution with parameters c(i) − c(i − 1), the total number of new positive cases in day i, and f_h, the probability that a positive case needs to be hospitalized.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 3

The algorithm implemented to select which patients are hospitalized at the beginning of the simulation. For the ICU the algorithm is the same but referring all the parameters to the ICU (arrivals, bed occupation…).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 4

Diagram that illustrates the number of new admitted patients (I_j) and the number of discharged patients (O_j) per day (D_j).

Once a discharge time or a transfer time between ward and ICU has been simulated for each hospitalized patient, the event calendar records those times, together with the arrival time of the next COVID-19 patient. The fitted Gompertz curve provides the number of patients arriving each day. These arrivals can be uniformly distributed during the next 24 hours or following a non-stationary pattern when, for example, a significant decrease of arrivals occurs at night. The clock of the simulation is advanced from zero to the minimum of the times recorded in the event calendar vector.

6.1 Input data

The developed simulator has a lot of flexibility to simulate a large number of scenarios and in different conditions. This allows medical staff to adapt the model to their particular hospital while testing different results by modifying some parameters. There are two types of input data to the simulator, depending on whether they are input parameters that are configured on the simulator screens before predictions are made or if they are external files to the program that the simulator needs to read to perform the simulation.

6.2 Simulation output

During the simulation, the program generates arrivals and discharges of patients of both the hospital and the ICU. The system evolves and the number of necessary beds is recorded at any time. In this simulation model, there are two sources of randomness. On the one hand, the number of patients arriving at the system (hospital and ICU), and on the other, the length of stay of patients, according to the distributions mentioned in Section 4.1. In each program run, the configured scenario is simulated many times (thousands), and thus a distribution of the number of beds needed each day is obtained since, in each simulation, the occupancy curve varies. The simulator calculates percentiles, which are stored in an Excel file, specifically the 5^th percentile (P5), the 50^th percentile (P50), and the 95^th percentile (P95). Also, these percentiles, which represent confidence bands, are plotted on a graph.

Fig. 5 shows the graphic outputs that are obtained with the program. On the left side, the necessary hospitalization beds are observed, while on the right side the same graph is shown but for the ICU occupation. The green-colored line represents the real evolution of the occupation, and the black dot indicates the Simulation Starting Point (SSP), that is, the moment from which it is simulated.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 5

Number of necessary hospitalization and ICU beds respectively for the following days. From the SSP, 3 lines corresponding to the 5^th, 50^th, and 95^th percentiles are plotted.

7.1 Incidence of COVID-19 disease in Navarre (Spain)

Navarre is a small community of the north of Spain. Its population is around 650,000 inhabitants, with more than a half gathered around the capital (Pamplona) and its surroundings, an area that represents 5% of the total surface. With this distribution of population, the Health Services of Navarre has a main hospital located in Pamplona, with more than 1,000 available hospital beds, and two secondary hospitals in two of the most populated cities (Estella and Tudela). In total, the public health system in Navarra has 1,466 hospital beds and 45 ICU beds, with the possibility of increasing these quantities if necessary.

Navarre was among the five Spanish autonomous communities with a higher cumulative incidence rate of COVID-19 confirmed cases at the beginning of the pandemic, according to the data collected by the Government of Navarre [72]. By May 12, 7,752 COVID-19 cases (11.9 per 1,000 inhabitants) had been confirmed in Navarre, and among them, 1,704 had been admitted to public hospitals (2.6 per 1,000). Fig. 6 shows four graphs with daily and cumulative data about positive cases and patients who have been admitted to public hospitals in Navarre. It is observed that time trends peaked on March 25 and 27 and decreased after April 1 and 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 6

Daily and cumulative data ofpositive cases and hospitalized patients recorded in Navarre from February 29 to May 12.

Observe that as of April 28 there seems to be a rebound in the number of positive cases, (see red-colored values), which are not reflected in the number of hospitalized patients. This is because in the first stage of the pandemic the system’s ability to perform tests was limited, and symptomatic patients were those who approached the system. However, as cases have decreased, the health system has reached out to patients to prevent further outbreaks, and far more cases of asymptomatic individuals have been detected than previously accounted for. This shows that when adjusting the Gompertz model based on positive cases, there are parameters, such as the hospitalization factor (f_h), that vary dynamically and must be updated.

7.2 Predictions of both hospitalization and ICU bed occupancy

7.2.1 Fitting the cumulative positive cases

In the early stages of a pandemic, there is a scarcity of data on both the number of people infected with the virus and hospitalized patients, as well as in the length of stays observed in the hospital. Therefore, the involvement of experts is very important and necessary to estimate these parameters at these stages. In this way, a first approach can be made to simulate the evolution of the pandemic in the following days.

Navarre was one of the first communities in Spain to be infected, so at the beginning, the historical series of people infected with the virus was used to estimate the patient arrival pattern. Another possibility would be to use the cumulative positive cases of Spain and apply the appropriate geographic factor (f_g). The problem that usually appears at the beginning of the outbreak is that the trend may lead to an exponential growth of the series. To avoid this, the total number of expected positive cases (A in equation (1)) is fixed, to obtain a realistic output from the Gompertz growth model fit.

Fig. 7 shows different results after applying the Gompertz growth model fit to the cumulative positive cases in Navarre. In the early stages of the pandemic (03-16), two curves can be seen, one of them obtained using the cumulative positive cases of Spain (03-16(Spain)). In addition, three more fits made on March 31 (03-31), April 15 (04-15), and April 30 (04-30) are exposed. Note that the last values in the series are not predicted very accurately and this is due to what was discussed in Section 7.1. These results demonstrate that accounting for positive cases has changed.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 7

Cumulative positive cases of Navarre from February 29 to May 12 and different fitted curves obtained from the Gompertz growth model.

The first two curves on March 16 were obtained after setting parameter A. For the case of Spain, A = 175,000 was established according to the cumulative incidence observed in China and reported in the bibliography, and comparing the evolution with Italy, where the pandemic outbroke a few weeks earlier. Then f_g scales the curve. The criterion for choosing its value was the rate of positive cases between Navarre and Spain at that time (3%) rather than the rate of populations between both regions (1.3%). In the case of the cumulative positive cases in Navarra, A = 6,500 was set (1% of the total population of Navarre), since the population in this region is more concentrated than in the rest of Spain, and this makes the infection more aggressive.

At the initial stage of the outbreak when there is not enough data to estimate the length of stay of patients, a triangular distribution is used. Experts fix the minimum, maximum, and most probable time as 10, 18, and 13 days respectively. In addition, a hospitalization factor (f_g) must be applied (0.35 for hospitalized patients and 0.04 for ICU patients), because the arrival pattern is based on positive cases. Fig. 8 shows both the prediction of the number of beds occupied in the hospitals and in the ICUs of Navarre simulated on March 16 for the next days. On the upper side, the predictions based on the cumulative positive cases of Navarre are observed, while those on the lower side are based on the cumulative positive cases of Spain. In each graph, the real evolution of bed occupancy in each area is shown in green.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 8

Comparison between the predictions made on March 16 for the number of beds occupied in the hospitals and the ICUs of Navarre and the real occupancies. The cumulative positive cases of Navarre have been used for predictions in the two graphs at the top, while the cumulative positive cases of Spain in those at the low.

Note that the most important predictions for the medical staff are for the short-medium term (yellow-colored area in Fig. 8), and the results obtained are very similar to the real ones concerning both hospital and ICU occupancies. Fig. 9 shows a zoom of these parts of the graphs. The simulator’s ability to obtain accurate predictions for the next 15 days, even in the early stages of the pandemic, is demonstrated here.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 9

Expanded part of the predictions (for both hospitalization and ICU) made on March 16 for the next 15 days using the cumulative positive cases of Navarre.

7.2.2 Fitting the cumulative hospitalized patients comparing levels of information

As the pandemic spreads, the amount of information increases, which makes it possible to improve the simulation model. Since March 26, the arrival pattern is calculated from the series of patients admitted to the hospital. In the first few days, it was required to fix the total number of expected hospitalized patients (A), as with the positive cases, due to the curve fitted by the Gompertz growth model increases exponentially. According to experts, about 2,000 patients were expected to be admitted to public hospitals during the pandemic. Fig. 10 shows different results after applying the Gompertz growth model fit to the cumulative hospitalized patients in Navarre. It can be seen that the curve obtained on March 26 overestimate hospitalizations, so it was replaced in the simulation by that in which the maximum is set at 2,000 (03-26 (2,000)).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 10

Cumulative hospitalized patients of Navarre from February 29 to May 12 and different fitted curves obtained from the Gompertz growth model.

Regarding the length of stay of patients both in hospital and ICU, there were already enough data to estimate them every day, as it is explained in Section 4.2. At the beginning of the pandemic, the length of stay of patients showed a reasonable fit to a Weibull distribution, although, as time goes by and more data has been obtained, the lognormal distribution has shown to be a better model. Each time the data was analyzed, the parameters of the distribution were configured for the simulation. Table 4 lists those parameters used in the simulations at different moments of the pandemic, as well as some of the variables entered manually in the simulator defined in Section 4.2.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4.

The parameters used in the simulation at different moments during the pandemic. The distributions of the different lengths of stay considered as well as the probabilities related to ICU patients are shown.

With all this information updated day by day, and the curves shown in Fig. 10, it is possible to simulate the evolution of the bed occupancy from a specific day. Fig. 11 shows two types of simulations carried out on March 26 and April 4. The difference between them lies in the amount of information used for the simulation. On the one hand, all the information was available, such as series of hospitalized patients and detailed information of the patients admitted (dates of admission and discharge of each patient, admission to the ICU, etc.). On the other hand, only the information about the series of hospital and ICU admissions, and the number of patients admitted at the beginning of the simulation (H_Wk y H_Ik) were used. These assumptions correspond to scenarios A and B respectively, which are developed in Section 5.2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig. 11

Comparative graphs on the predictions made with different levels of information (scenarios A and B). Each graph shows the predictions made for the number of beds occupied in the hospitals and the ICUs of Navarre and the real occupancies. The four predictions at the top side were made on March 26, while those four at the low were made on April 4.

In view of the results, it can be seen that there is no great difference between the two types of simulation, which is very encouraging since the usefulness of the simulator is demonstrated even when all the disaggregated information on patients is not available. In addition to this, it is observed that the results are more accurate on the second date because more information is available and it is somewhat easier to predict the occupation of beds once the peak occupancy has been exceeded.