Applying systems engineering to create a population‐centered sleep disorders program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a healthcare service redesign. In 2005, sleep disorder diagnostic assessments for patients in the Province of Manitoba were conducted at two independent sites. Referrals had accumulated, creating a waiting list of over 3,400 patients while only 1,200 patients were studied annually. Wait times for diagnosis and treatment increased dramatically. No managed patient database existed, nor were there standards to measure the effectiveness of the services. Design/methodology/approach A systems analysis approach was used which including population demand analysis, value stream mapping and refining the clinical service objectives. The current and desired state of the system was defined and a gap analysis became the foundation of a change management plan. Findings A system redesign resulted in tripling the throughput with a 35 per cent increase in operating budget, evaluation metrics, elimination of diagnostic handling and treatment start delays, and an increase in treatment rates for positively diagnosed patients from 55 to 70 per cent. Originality/value This paper provides an example of how healthcare services can be envisioned using a systems analysis approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".