Dynamic Patient Scheduling for Multi‐Appointment Health Care Programs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the scheduling practices of a multidisciplinary, multistage, outpatient health care program. Patients undergo a series of assessments before being eligible for elective surgery. Such systems often suffer from high rates of attrition and appointment no‐shows leading to capacity underutilization and treatment delays. We propose a new scheduling model where the clinic assigns patients to an appointment day but postpones the decision of which assessments patients undergo pending the observation of who arrives. In doing so, the clinic gains flexibility to improve system performance. We formulate the scheduling problem as a Markov decision process and use approximate dynamic programming to solve it. We apply our approach to a dataset collected from a bariatric surgery program at a large tertiary hospital in Toronto, Canada. We examine the quality of our solutions via structural results and compare them with heuristic scheduling practices using a discrete‐event simulation. By allowing multiple assessments, delaying their scheduling, and by optimizing over an appointment book, we show significant improvements in patient throughput, clinic profit, use of overtime, and staff utilization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it