MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048404532 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.284

Lean thinking by integrating with discrete event simulation and design of experiments: an emergency department expansion

2020· article· en· W3048404532 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsEmergency departmentTriageDiscrete event simulationHealth careOperations managementData collectionEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceLean manufacturingQuality (philosophy)Operations researchPlan (archaeology)Medical emergencyMedicineEngineeringSimulationNursingMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many management tools, such as Discrete Event Simulation (DES) and Lean Healthcare, are efficient to support and assist health care quality. In this sense, the study aims at using Lean Thinking (LT) principles combined with DES to plan a Canadian emergency department (ED) expansion and at meeting the demand that comes from small care centers closed. The project's purpose is reducing the patients' Length of Stay (LOS) in the ED. Additionally, they must be assisted as soon as possible after the triage process. Furthermore, the study aims at determining the ideal number of beds in the Short Stay Unit (SSU). The patients must not wait more than 180 min to be transferred. METHODS: , and, with the Design of Experiments (DoE), the optimal number of beds, seats, and resources for each shift was determined. Data collection and modeling were executed based on historical data (patients' arrival) and from some databases that are in use by the hospital, from April 1st, 2017 to March 31st, 2018. The experiments were carried out by running 30 replicates for each scenario. RESULTS: The results show that the emergency department cannot meet expected demand in the initial planning scenario. Only 17.2% of the patients were completed treated, and LOS was 2213.7 (average), with a confidence interval of (2131.8-2295.6) min. However, after changing decision variables and applying LT techniques, the treated patients' number increased to 95.7% (approximately 600%). Average LOS decreased to 461.2, with a confidence interval of (453.7-468.7) min, about 79.0%. The time to be attended after the triage decrease from 404.3 min to 20.8 (19.8-21.8) min, around 95.0%, while the time to be transferred from bed to the SSU decreased by 60.0%. Moreover, the ED reduced human resources downtime, according to Lean Thinking principles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it