Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21643698›Full record

ArticleHealth care management science2011

How to juggle priorities? An interactive tool to provide quantitative support for strategic patient-mix decisions: an ophthalmology case.

Paul E Joustra, Jesse de Wit, Nico M Van Dijk, Piet J M Bakker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health care management science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paul E JoustraDepartment of Quality Assurance and Process Innovation, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9 Room D01-319, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. P.E.Joustra@AMC.UvA.nl
Jesse de Wit
Nico M Van Dijk
Piet J M Bakker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An interactive tool was developed for the ophthalmology department of the Academic Medical Center to quantitatively support management with strategic patient-mix decisions. The tool enables management to alter the number of patients in various patient groups and to see the consequences in terms of key performance indicators. In our case study, we focused on the bottleneck: the operating room. First, we performed a literature review to identify all factors that influence an operating room's utilization rate. Next, we decided which factors were relevant to our study. For these relevant factors, two quantitative methods were applied to quantify the impact of an individual factor: regression analysis and computer simulation. Finally, the average duration of an operation, the number of cancellations due to overrun of previous surgeries, and the waiting time target for elective patients all turned out to have significant impact. Accordingly, for the case study, the interactive tool was shown to offer management quantitative decision support to act proactively to expected alterations in patient-mix. Hence, management can anticipate the future situation, and either alter the expected patient-mix or expand capacity to ensure that the key performance indicators will be met in the future.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesDecision Support TechniquesDiagnosis-Related GroupsComputer SimulationHumansOperating RoomsOphthalmologic Surgical ProceduresRegression AnalysisUnited StatesWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID21643698
PMCPMC3223568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.