Organizing timely treatment in multi-disciplinary care
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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