Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Hospital Medical Surge Capacity Assessment and Planning Tools for Disaster Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Disaster medicine and public health preparednessDinar, Hisham Hassan Ali, Othman, Omer Abdel Fattah, Hubloue, Ives19 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

60CEBM
Evidence: ModerateSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationHospitals and healthcare systems requiring disaster surge capacity planning
I — InterventionSurge capacity assessment and planning tools (simulation tools, surveys, resource strategies)
C — ComparatorStandard or alternative surge capacity planning approaches
O — OutcomesReliability, validity, and applicability of surge capacity tools; preparedness improvement measures

Bottom Line

This systematic review suggests simulation-based surge capacity tools show promise for hospital disaster preparedness, with moderate overall effectiveness (ES = 0.74). However, substantial heterogeneity between studies (I² = 76.70%) and confirmed publication bias significantly limit confidence in these findings. Simulation tools demonstrated the most consistent results, while resource-based strategies showed high variability, suggesting context-dependent effectiveness. The review's methodological limitations, including restricted database searching and lack of GRADE assessment, weaken the evidence base. For Australian healthcare systems, these findings support continued investment in simulation-based preparedness training, but implementation should be tailored to local disaster risks and healthcare infrastructure. More rigorous primary studies with standardised outcome measures are needed before definitive practice recommendations can be made.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: Not explicitly reported for primary outcome

  • Effect Size: Combined effect size 0.74 (moderate improvement)

  • Primary Outcome: Surge capacity tool effectiveness measured by preparedness improvement

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Simulation tools most effective (ES = 0.81, I² = 0%); resource strategies most variable (ES = 0.71, I² = 74.42%)

  • Confidence Interval: 95% CI: 0.67-0.82

Clinical Application

Implementation depends on institutional resources, training requirements, and integration with existing emergency protocols Relevant to Australian disaster preparedness given bushfire, flood, and pandemic experiences; aligns with National Health Emergency Response Arrangements and state-based health emergency management frameworks Hospital emergency management teams, disaster preparedness coordinators, and healthcare system planners

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospital surge capacity is pivotal for disaster response, yet the effectiveness of assessment and planning tools remains underexplored. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluates the reliability, validity, and applicability of surge capacity tools across disaster scenarios. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed 24 Q1 studies (PubMed, Scopus) using the PICO framework. Risk of bias was assessed via ROBINS-E, and meta-analysis (random-effects model) quantified pooled effect sizes (ES). Subgroup analyses compared simulation tools, surveys, and resource strategies. RESULTS: The combined ES was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.67-0.82), indicating moderate improvement in preparedness. Simulation tools (Group A) showed the highest consistency (ES = 0.81, I2 = 0%), while resource strategies (Group C) had wider variability (ES = 0.71, I2 = 74.42%). Egger's regression revealed publication bias (P = 0.004), and heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 76.70%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based tools are most effective for surge capacity, whereas resource strategies require contextual adaptation. Policymakers should prioritize standardized benchmarks and DSS integration, with future research addressing equity and real-world implementation gaps.

References

  1. 1.Dinar, H. H. A., Othman, O. A. F., & Hubloue, I. (2026). Hospital Medical Surge Capacity Assessment and Planning Tools for Disaster Response: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2026.10370
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service