A complexity-based measure for emergency department crowding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Overcrowding continues to afflict emergency departments (EDs), and its attendant consequences are becoming increasingly severe. The burden of the COVID-19 pandemic is further escalating the situation worldwide. One of the most critical questions is how to adequately quantify what constitutes overcrowding and determine implications for operations management in improving service efficiency. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose the time and class complexity measures for ED service systems, taking into account important patient-level and system characteristics. Using an extensive data set from a Canadian ED, the authors investigate the performance of complexity-based measures in predicting service delays. Findings The authors find that the complexity measure is potentially more important than some well-known crowding metrics. In particular, EDs can improve service efficiency by managing the level of complexity within a desirable interval. Furthermore, complexity exposes how the interplay between demand-side behavioral changes and supply-side responses affects operational performance. Moreover, the results suggest that arrival patterns—the number of patients of each class arriving per time and times between events (arrivals and service completions)—increase the risk of service delays more than the demand volume. Originality/value This paper is the first to provide an extensive investigation into the application of the complexity-based measure for ED crowding. The study demonstrates potential values to be gained in ED service systems if complexity measure is incorporated into their operations management decisions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".