MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386742161 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11182541

The Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Emergency Departments and Management of Emergency Conditions: A Narrative Review

2023· review· en· W4386742161 on OpenAlexaff
Mirpouya Mirmozaffari, Noreen Kamal

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisNarrativeEmergency managementOperations researchComputer scienceOperations managementData scienceMedical emergencyBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineEngineeringStatisticsArtMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The healthcare industry is one application for data envelopment analysis (DEA) that can have significant benefits for standardizing health service delivery. This narrative review focuses on the application of DEA in emergency departments (EDs) and the management of emergency conditions such as acute ischemic stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This includes benchmarking the proportion of patients that receive treatment for these emergency conditions. The most frequent primary areas of study motivating work in DEA, EDs and management of emergency conditions including acute management of stroke are sorted into five distinct clusters in this study: (1) using basic DEA models for efficiency analysis in EDs, i.e., applying variable return to scale (VRS), or constant return to scale (CRS) to ED operations; (2) combining advanced and basic DEA approaches in EDs, i.e., applying super-efficiency with basic DEA or advanced DEA approaches such as additive model (ADD) and slack-based measurement (SBM) to clarify the dynamic aspects of ED efficiency throughout the duration of a first-aid program for AMI or heart attack; (3) applying DEA time series models in EDs like the early use of thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in AMI treatment, and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke treatment, i.e., using window analysis and Malmquist productivity index (MPI) to benchmark the performance of EDs over time; (4) integrating other approaches with DEA in EDs, i.e., combining simulations, machine learning (ML), multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM) by DEA to reduce patient waiting times, and futile transfers; and (5) applying various DEA models for the management of acute ischemic stroke, i.e., using DEA to increase the number of eligible acute ischemic stroke patients receiving EVT and other medical ischemic stroke treatment in the form of thrombolysis (alteplase and now Tenecteplase). We thoroughly assess the methodological basis of the papers, offering detailed explanations regarding the applied models, selected inputs and outputs, and all relevant methodologies. In conclusion, we explore several ways to enhance DEA's status, transforming it from a mere technical application into a strong methodology that can be utilized by healthcare managers and decision-makers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.347
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207