MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391491109 · doi:10.1287/msom.2022.0377

What Causes Delays in Admission to Rehabilitation Care? A Structural Estimation Approach

2024· article· en· W4391491109 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRehabilitationQueueing theoryStatus quoEstimationPsychological interventionOperations managementMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem definition: Delays in admission to rehabilitation care can adversely impact patient outcomes. In addition, delayed patients keep occupying their acute care beds, making them unavailable for incoming patients. Admission delays are mainly caused by a lack of rehabilitation bed capacity and the time required to plan for rehabilitation activities, which we refer to as processing times. Because of non-standard bed allocation decisions and data limitations in practice, quantifying the magnitude of the two sources of delays can be technically challenging yet critical to the design of evidence-based interventions to reduce delays. We propose an empirical approach to understanding the contributions of the two sources of delays when only a single (combined) measure of admission delay is available. Methodology/results: We propose a hidden Markov model (HMM) to estimate the unobserved processing times and the status-quo bed allocation policy. Our estimation results quantify the magnitude of processing times versus capacity-driven delays and provide insights into factors impacting the bed allocation decision. We validate our estimated policy using a queueing model of patient flow and find that ignoring processing times or using simple bed allocation policies can lead to highly inaccurate delay estimates. In contrast, our estimated policy allows for accurate evaluation of different operational interventions. We find that reducing processing times can be highly effective in reducing admission delays and bed-blocking costs. In addition, allowing early transfer—whereby patients can complete some of their processing requirements in the rehabilitation unit—can significantly reduce admission delays, with only a small increase in rehab LOS. Managerial implications: Our study demonstrates the importance of quantifying different sources of delays in the design of effective operational interventions for reducing delays in admission to rehabilitation care. The proposed estimation framework can be applied in other transition-of-care settings with personalized capacity allocation decisions and hidden processing delays. History: This paper was selected for Fast Track in the M&SOM journal from the 2022 MSOM Healthcare SIG Conference. Funding: J. Dong was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [Grant CMMI-1762544]. V. Sarhangian was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2018-04518] and the Connaught Fund. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.0377 .

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.358 · 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