Models of Emergency Departments for Reducing Patient Waiting Times
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we apply both agent-based models and queuing models to investigate patient access and patient flow through emergency departments. The objective of this work is to gain insights into the comparative contributions and limitations of these complementary techniques, in their ability to contribute empirical input into healthcare policy and practice guidelines. The models were developed independently, with a view to compare their suitability to emergency department simulation. The current models implement relatively simple general scenarios, and rely on a combination of simulated and real data to simulate patient flow in a single emergency department or in multiple interacting emergency departments. In addition, several concepts from telecommunications engineering are translated into this modeling context. The framework of multiple-priority queue systems and the genetic programming paradigm of evolutionary machine learning are applied as a means of forecasting patient wait times and as a means of evolving healthcare policy, respectively. The models' utility lies in their ability to provide qualitative insights into the relative sensitivities and impacts of model input parameters, to illuminate scenarios worthy of more complex investigation, and to iteratively validate the models as they continue to be refined and extended. The paper discusses future efforts to refine, extend, and validate the models with more data and real data relative to physical (spatial-topographical) and social inputs (staffing, patient care models, etc.). Real data obtained through proximity location and tracking system technologies is one example discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".