Process reengineering using DMAIC framework for reduction of waiting time in daycare infusion therapy for better patient experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daycare infusion therapy is an integral aspect of oncology, but increased waiting time raises concerns for patients. Patient-reported experience measures prompted the need to evaluate reasons for prolonged appointment delays. This study seeks to analyze and address patients' concerns, to streamline the process flow and reduce waiting time for daycare infusion therapy thereby enhancing patient experience. The define, measure, analyze, improve, and control methodology was implemented, and its impact on reducing waiting times was evaluated. The objective is to ensure that >85% of patients enter the daycare infusion unit within an hour of their appointment time in 6 months. The baseline data for patient waiting times was measured for a period of 2 months, and the average waiting time was determined. Potential causes contributing to prolonged waiting times were identified through time-motion analysis, with a fishbone diagram categorizing potential causes and a Pareto chart prioritizing them. Plan, do, study, and act cycles were conducted for implementing the changes, and a new process flow mapped. Baseline data showed 32% average adherence to the defined turnaround time of 1 hour, with an average waiting time of 108 minutes. Forty causes were identified for increased waiting time, of which eight were key. Adherence to waiting time turnaround time improved from 32% to 89% and the average waiting time decreased by 59 minutes from 108 minutes, increasing patient satisfaction index by 7.5%. The balancing measures include an increase in operational efficiency and throughput of the unit and the inventory levels of oncology medicine were decreased, leading to a 50% reduction in inventory value, while medication error declined by 0.62%, improving patient safety. The project gained tangible and intangible benefits impacting staff, patients, and relatives while improving operational efficiency. This study, with its scientific and systematic approach, enhanced patient satisfaction, patient safety, and better utilization of resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".