MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7084179386

DEVELOPING A SIMULATION-BASED DECISION SUPPORT TOOL TO IMPROVE CANCER CARE RESOURCE USE AND PATIENT ACCESS

2025· article· en· W7084179386 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSaskatchewan Cancer Agency
Mots-clésPunctualityDecision support systemIsolation (microbiology)Health careScheduling (production processes)Resource (disambiguation)Healthcare systemClinical decision support system
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The healthcare system delivers processes that involve complex interactions among different types of staff, equipment, and the patients that receive diverse medical services. These interactions often result in long waiting times for patients and poor utilization of staff and resources, aspects that need to be improved. This dissertation presents a study to address issues in these areas by considering complex dynamic behaviors, namely uncertainty, ambiguity, and incompleteness, present in such a system. The overall objective of this dissertation is to develop a simulation system for aiding decision-makers in managing operations, such as scheduling and other administrative policies making. A specific healthcare facility, the Saskatoon Cancer Clinic (SCC), is taken as the study vehicle, both for illustration and validation purposes. This dissertation involves experiments, based on the simulation of five different scenarios in the SCC operations environment, which represent the activities of the staff and patients, patients‟ pathways in the SCC, and physical resources (Reception, Medical Review Office, Phlebotomy, Examination Rooms). The system makes the following assumptions: (1) the patients are divided into two classes (New Patients and Returning Patients) and (2), cancers are classified into eight types. The patients are further characterized with other attributes: (a) the punctuality of coming to the clinic, (b) no-show, (c) cancelation, (d) the need of isolation (being infectious), (e) time spent with various staff (14 different types in total), (f) the number of times the patient received services by each staff during their visit, (g) the frequency of the appointments, (h) the time span between appointments, and (i) patient treatment plans. Each staff is characterized by (1) schedules, (2) work shifts, (3) vacation, (4) type of disease they have the expertise to serve, (5) types of patients they serve, (6) the time assigned for service, and (7) actual time of service. The modeling tool used for building the simulation system is Discrete Event Simulation (DES), specifically AnyLogic software, because it is best suited for the conceptualization and granularity level made for this system. The simulation system consists of (1) a BAseline Simulation model (BAS) (i.e. current operations), (2) five different What-If Scenarios (WISes) (variations of different structural changes in the system). The BAS is created first, followed by its extensive validation. The five WIS models are created to generate results for fourteen different Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the system. The KPIs characterize the patients, staff, and resource in the system, e.g. number of patients waiting for their first appointment with an oncologist, length of stay of patients in the clinic, utilization of examination rooms, etc. The KPIs are analyzed individually as well as aggregated with an equal weight; the domain of the real number values of the KPIs is a value range of (1, 6), where „6‟ denotes the worst and „1‟ denotes the best KPI. The result of the simulation for the five WISes is as follows: (1) Scenario 1 has a value of 1.93, which is ranked the first among all the five scenarios (having two oncologists sharing three examination rooms); (2) Scenario 3 has a value of 2.57, which is ranked the second among all the five scenarios – this scenario has a flexible lunch hour, and it has three new patients to be consulted per each four hour shift block; (3) Scenario 5 (3.36) is ranked the third, followed by Scenario 2 (3.71), and Scenario 4 (4.5), and the BAS (4.79) ranks last. This dissertation draws the following conclusions. First, there are ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of oncology clinics, as well as other ambulatory clinics. Second, patients benefit from the re-design of certain clinical administrative policies. Third, increasing the efficiency of the clinic, Canadian health dollars can be saved. Previous studies focused only on specific aspects, such as (1) patient wait times, (2) patient's schedules, (3) utilization of chemotherapy chairs, (4) utilization of nurses, (5) staff overtime, (6) staff schedule, in a non-integral manner, while this study takes an integral approach with the finest system granularity. The main scientific contributions of this dissertation in the field of operation management of complex healthcare systems are: (1) validating the effectiveness of the approach of human collaborative decision making based on the simulation of individual to individual interactions in medical treatment centers; (2) developing the procedure of constructing a discrete event dynamics simulation model for medical treatment centers with highly uncertain dynamics, including model construction and validation; (3) demonstrating the benefit of the approach along with the simulation system in reducing the waiting time of patients to receive treatments. This dissertation has provided evidence of improving the efficiency of complex healthcare systems, generating a positive impact to the quality of Canadian healthcare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: Méthodes
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,211
Écart entre enseignants0,201 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)→Même sujetGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→Travaux en français237 207→