Mixed Appointment Scheduling: Managing Routine and Same-Day Appointments for Outpatient Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article introduces a novel scheduling approach for managing a mix of routine and same-day appointments in an outpatient clinic. While the well-known carve-out scheduling (COS) policy reserves the provider capacity for same-day patients, its use of dedicated slots for each patient class may increase the risk of system underutilization or overload and long patient wait times. We propose the mixed appointment scheduling (MAS) policy, which allows routine and same-day patients to share common appointment slots, and investigate its performance relative to COS. By formulating a new model to determine the optimal scheduling decisions under the MAS policy, we demonstrate that the problem’s objective function (the total daily cost) is no longer multimodular in the presence of priority service discipline and demand uncertainty. We develop efficient methods to identify optimal scheduling policies and show that MAS reduces system costs, improves utilization, and decreases delays, particularly when same-day demand is moderate relative to clinic capacity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".