MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007683212 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2008.20159

Using Operations Research to Plan the British Columbia Registered Nurses' Workforce

2008· article· en· W2007683212 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mariel S. Lavieri, Sandra Regan, Martin L. Puterman, Pamela A. Ratner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Nurses Foundation
KeywordsWorkforceAttritionFlexibility (engineering)Workforce planningPlan (archaeology)Time horizonBusinessOperations managementWorkforce managementBalance (ability)Process managementOperations researchComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsManagementMedicineFinanceEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors explore the power and flexibility of using an operations research methodology known as linear programming to support health human resources (HHR) planning. The model takes as input estimates of the future need for healthcare providers and, in contrast to simulation, compares all feasible strategies to identify a long-term plan for achieving a balance between supply and demand at the least cost to the system. The approach is illustrated by using it to plan the British Columbia registered nurse (RN) workforce over a 20-year horizon. The authors show how the model can be used for scenario analysis by investigating the impact of decreasing attrition from educational programs, changing RN-to-manager ratios in direct care and exploring how other changes might alter planning recommendations. In addition to HHR policy recommendations, their analysis also points to new research opportunities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.570
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.007 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207