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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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