An intelligent algorithm for optimizing emergency department job and patient satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Resilience engineering, job satisfaction and patient satisfaction were evaluated and analyzed in one Tehran emergency department (ED) to determine ED strengths, weaknesses and opportunities to improve safety, performance, staff and patient satisfaction. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The algorithm included data envelopment analysis (DEA), two artificial neural networks: multilayer perceptron and radial basis function. Data were based on integrated resilience engineering (IRE) and satisfaction indicators. IRE indicators are considered inputs and job and patient satisfaction indicators are considered output variables. Methods were based on mean absolute percentage error analysis. Subsequently, the algorithm was employed for measuring staff and patient satisfaction separately. Each indicator is also identified through sensitivity analysis. Findings The results showed that salary, wage, patient admission and discharge are the crucial factors influencing job and patient satisfaction. The results obtained by the algorithm were validated by comparing them with DEA. Practical implications The approach is a decision-making tool that helps health managers to assess and improve performance and take corrective action. Originality/value This study presents an IRE and intelligent algorithm for analyzing ED job and patient satisfaction - the first study to present an integrated IRE, neural network and mathematical programming approach for optimizing job and patient satisfaction, which simultaneously optimizes job and patient satisfaction, and IRE. The results are validated by DEA through statistical methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".