Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare providers experience an increased pressure to organize their processes more efficiently and to provide coordinated care over multiple disciplines. Organizing multi-disciplinary care is typically highly constrained, since multiple appointments per patient have to be scheduled with possible restrictions between them. Furthermore, schedules of professionals from various facilities or with different skills must be aligned. Since it is important that patients are treated on time, access time targets are set on the time between referral to the facility and the actual start of the treatment. These targets may vary per patient type: e.g., urgent patients have shorter access time targets than regular patients. In this thesis, we use operations research methods to support multi-disciplinary care settings in providing timely treatments with an excellent quality of care, against affordable costs, while taking patient and employee satisfaction into account. We consider settings in rehabilitation care and radiotherapy, but the underlying planning problems are applicable to many other multi-disciplinary care settings, such as cancer care or specialty clinics. The developed models are applied to case studies in the Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, the AMC Amsterdam and a BCCA cancer clinic in Vancouver, Canada. The results of the thesis demonstrate that adequate admission policies and capacity allocation to different activities and stages in complex treatment processes can improve compliance with access time targets for multi-disciplinary care systems considerably, while using the available resource capacities and taking patient and employee satisfaction into account.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".