Increased Surgical Capacity without Additional Resources: Generalized Operating Room Planning and Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study a generalized operating room planning and scheduling (GORPS) problem at the Toronto General Hospital (TGH) in Ontario, Canada. GORPS allocates elective patients and resources (i.e., operating rooms, surgeons, anesthetists) to days, assigns resources to patients, and sequences patients in each day. We consider patients’ due‐date, resource eligibility, heterogeneous performances of resources, downstream unit requirements, and lag times between resources. The goal is to create a weekly surgery schedule that minimizes fixed‐ and over‐time costs. We model GORPS using mixed‐integer and constraint programming models. To efficiently and effectively solve these models, we develop new‘ multi‐featured logic‐based Benders decomposition approaches. Using data from TGH, we demonstrate that our best algorithm solves GORPS with an average optimality gap of 2.71% which allows us to provide our practical recommendations. First, we can increase daily OR utilization to reach 80%—25% higher than the status quo in TGH. Second, we do not require to optimize for the daily selection of anesthetists—this finding allows for the development of effective dominance rules that significantly mitigate intractability. Third, solving GORPS without downstream capacities (like many papers in literature) makes GORPS easier to solve, but such OR schedules are only feasible in 24% of instances. Finally, with existing ORs’ safety capacities, TGH can manage 40% increase in its surgical volumes. We provide recommendations on how TGH must adjust its downstream capacities for varying levels of surgical volume increases (e.g., current urgent need for more capacity due to the current Covid‐19 pandemic).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".