Dynamic Distributed Ambulatory Care Scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate an ambulatory care scheduling problem derived from a real case in Ontario, Canada that offers multi-appointment, multi-class, multi-priority treatments in geographically distributed campuses with multiple resources. We consider a dynamic setting with uncertain patient arrival and use of the emergency department. This problem is formulated as an infinite-horizon Markov decision process model. Since we cannot solve large-sized instances via conventional approaches, we hybridize this model with a neural network to simplify feasibility constraints while respecting all assumptions. Given the curse of dimensionality, we use an affine approximation architecture to estimate the value function. An equivalent linear programing model is solved through column generation in order to compute approximate optimal policies and derive two easy-to-implement scheduling policies. Simulation results demonstrate that the approximate optimal policy and heuristics outperform alternative scheduling policies. Finally, we demonstrate that the application of our methodology can enhance performance metrics in a large ambulatory care center in Canada. We show that a template-based scheduling rule can result in high resource utilization but poor scheduling decisions. However, an efficient scheduling policy equips a booking clerk with intelligent scheduling rules that are difficult for her to predict in real-time and work well in comparison to scheduling templates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".