MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078011016 · doi:10.1097/sih.0b013e3182301005

Emergency Department Patient Flow Simulations Using Spreadsheets

2012· article· en· W2078011016 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Klein, Gilles Reinhardt

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwarePopularityCoding (social sciences)Discrete event simulationSimulationIndustrial engineeringProgramming languageEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patient flow computer simulations allow Emergency Department stakeholders to assess operational interventions, develop utilization and performance measures, and produce estimates for budgeting or planning purposes. Key challenges of traditional discrete-event computer simulation software are their inherent complexity for modeling, coding, or analyzing output and their significant costs and training. We propose a simulation platform that runs in spreadsheets. Because of their low cost, popularity and powerful functionality and performance, spreadsheets also allow for the development and management of simulations that efficiently output results that are just as reliable as those from traditional software. METHODS: A spreadsheet simulation is developed by modeling one row as one simulated minute (more than 20,000 rows for a 2-week period). Uncertainty in arrivals, patient type, routing, and treatment times is modeled using the "rand()" function to simulate the state of the Emergency Department at a given point in time. The patient is tracked with embedded "if()" functions and summary statistics are obtained through range functions. We use an equivalence test to determine whether the resulting average length-of-stay figures are the same as those of a traditional simulation platform. RESULTS: We find little significant difference in average length-of-stay figures between both models. CONCLUSIONS: Spreadsheet simulations are as effective as traditional simulations but easier to use, understand, and implement. Spreadsheet software is widely available, at a fraction of the cost of discrete-event simulation software. Coding spreadsheet simulations may be more challenging as it requires a different and more novel expertise than traditional computer programming. However, spreadsheets can be organized to reference existing datasets, thus minimizing the burden of copying and likelihood of transcription errors and information leakage. Output analysis can also be customized with user-specific performance statistics and charts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207