Determinants in the number of staff in hospitals’ maintenance departments: a multivariate regression analysis approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there are no broadly accepted or accurate models to determine appropriate staffing [levels] for clinical engineering departments (CEDs). The purpose of this study is to determine what the determinants of the staffing levels are (total number of full time equivalents (FTEs)) in CEDs in healthcare organisations. In doing so, we used a cross-sectional exploratory approach by using a multivariate regression model over a secondary source of data information from the AAMI Benchmarking Solutions—Healthcare Technology Management database. Two hundred and one healthcare organisations were included in our study. Our study revealed that on average, there are almost 14 biomedical technicians (BMETs) per clinical engineer and one FTE per 1083.72 devices (SD 545.69). The results of this study also revealed that the total number of devices and the total technology management hours devoted to these devices positively affects the number of FTEs in a CED, whereas the hospital complexity, measured by healthcare organisation patient discharges matters inversely. The most important factor that matters in the number of FTEs in CEDs was the total technology management hours devoted to devices. A value of explained variance (i.e. R2) of 85% was obtained, indicating the strong power of the prediction accuracy of our multivariate regression model.
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".