MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008099582 · doi:10.1097/pec.0b013e31802c611e

Computer Modeling of Patient Flow in a Pediatric Emergency Department Using Discrete Event Simulation

2007· article· en· W2008099582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvercrowdingStaffingEmergency departmentMedicineTriageDiscrete event simulationScheduling (production processes)Medical emergencyEmergency medicineSimulationOperations managementComputer scienceNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Increasing patient census and department overcrowding are universal concerns in pediatric emergency medicine. Accurate predictions of patient flow and resource utilization in the pediatric emergency department (PED) are important in determining what aspects of PED activity could be modified to improve patient flow, reduce patient waiting times, and increase staff efficiency and morale, and thus direct change more effectively. BACKGROUND: We report (1) the construction of a Patient Flow Model (PFM) using discrete event simulation to test simulated PED staffing scenarios that were designed to alleviate the pressures that result from increased census and overcrowding, and (2) a Physician Scheduling Analysis Tool to assist in physician scheduling. METHODS: Arena discrete event simulation modeling software was used to develop a model of PED patient flow after extensive interviews with PED staff and direct observation of patient flow in July 2005. A total of 517 patients were directly observed, and all modeled aspects of their interaction with PED staff and resources were recorded. Historical demographic patient arrival information was combined with observed patient flow data to provide simulated patient arrival rates for the PFM and was also used to construct the Physician Scheduling Analysis Tool. Validation of the PFM was performed by comparing annual simulated patient flow data with actual patient flow data. Previously determined staffing scenarios were applied to the simulation and the resulting performance indicator outputs examined. RESULTS: The PFM was validated on model-wide and process-specific levels, with excellent validation observed on high acuity-patient length of stay and for highly detailed processes such as triage and registration. Simulation of the addition of a hospital volunteer and a second triage nurse demonstrated reductions in pretriage waiting time and the proportion of patients waiting longer than 30 or 60 minutes for pretriage. Simulation of an extra physician shift to the staff schedule demonstrated reductions in length of stay for patients of all triage categories. CONCLUSIONS: The PFM accurately represents patient flow through the department and can provide simulated patient flow information on a variety of scenarios. It can effectively simulate changes to the model and its effects on patient flow.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.361 · 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