Performance evaluation of emergency department physicians using robust value‐based additive efficiency model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We propose a novel variant of the value‐based additive data envelopment analysis model. It conducts a comprehensive robustness analysis of efficiency outcomes for all feasible input and output weights using mathematical programming and the Monte Carlo simulation. We also introduce the original procedures for selecting a common vector of weights and an approach for investigating the stability of results in a multiscenario setting. The presented framework is applied to evaluate the performance of emergency department physicians using data from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa. Our focus is on the physicians' performance when dealing with groups of patients' complaints related to abdominal pain and constipation, fever, extremity injury, head injury, and laceration/puncture. The obtained results emphasize the strong dependence of the physicians' performances on the selected weight vectors. However, they prove helpful in pointing out overall good performers who can serve as universal benchmarks or niche performers being markedly better in providing care to a given complaint group. They also offer a basis for developing an improvement plan for the underperforming physicians, identifying the priorities for a practice‐oriented model, and recognizing the most challenging patients' complaints.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".