A flexible and optimal approach for appointment scheduling in healthcare
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
ABSTRACT Appointment scheduling is generally applied in outpatient clinics and other healthcare services. The challenge in scheduling is to find a strategy for dealing with variability and unpredictability in service duration and patient arrivals. The consequences of an ineffective strategy include long waiting times for patients and idle time for the healthcare provider. In turn, these have implications for the perceived quality, cost‐efficiency, and capacity of healthcare services. The generation of optimal schedules is a notoriously intractable problem, and earlier attempts at designing effective strategies for appointment scheduling were based on approximation, simulation, or simplification. We propose a novel strategy for scheduling that exploits three tactical ideas to make the problem manageable. We compare the proposed strategy to other approaches, and show that it matches or outperforms competing methods in terms of flexibility, ease of use, and speed. More importantly, it outperforms competing approaches nearly uniformly in approaching the desired balance between waiting and idle times as specified in a chosen objective function. Therefore, the strategy is a good basis for further enrichments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it