MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015086092 · doi:10.1108/01443571311307253

Appointment system design with interruptions and physician lateness

2013· article· en· W2015086092 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

VenueInternational Journal of Operations & Production Management · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Computer scienceOperations managementHealth careScheduling (production processes)Variance (accounting)Variety (cybernetics)Operations researchBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Physician lateness and service interruptions are a significant problem in many health care environments but have received little attention in the literature. The purpose of this paper is to design appointment systems that reduce waiting times of the patient while maintaining utilization of the physician at a high level. Design/methodology/approach Empirical data from time studies and surveys of medical professionals from multiple outpatient clinics are used to motivate the study. Simulation optimization is used to simultaneously account for uncertainty and to determine (near) optimal scheduling solutions. Findings As lateness increases, it is shown that, in general, appointment slots should be shorter and pushed later in the session. Conversely, as interruptions rise, appointments in the middle of the session should be longer. These findings are fairly consistent over a variety of environmental conditions, including clinic sizes, service time variance, and costs of physician time compared to patients' time. Practical implications This paper demonstrates that the dome/plateau‐dome scheduling patterns that have been found in prior studies work well under many of the new factors modeled here. This is encouraging because it suggests that a generalizable pattern is emerging in the literature for the range of environments studied in these papers and this research provides guidance as to how to adjust the pattern to account for the factors studied here. In addition, it is shown that some environments will perform better with a different pattern, which the authors denote a “descending step” pattern. Originality/value This paper differs from most prior studies in that the complexity of environmental variables and stochastic elements of the model are simultaneously accounted for by the simulation optimization algorithm. The (very few) prior papers that have used simulation optimization have not addressed the factors studied here.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.322 · 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