Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26386970›Full record

ReviewHealth care management science2017

Case mix planning in hospitals: a review and future agenda.

Sebastian Hof, Andreas Fügener, Jan Schoenfelder, Jens O Brunner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health care management science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
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.

Sebastian HofUniversitäres Zentrum für Gesundheitswissenschaften am Klinikum Augsburg (UNIKA-T), School of Business and Economics, Universität Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Andreas FügenerUniversitäres Zentrum für Gesundheitswissenschaften am Klinikum Augsburg (UNIKA-T), School of Business and Economics, Universität Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany. andreas.fuegener@wiwi.uni-augsburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4580-7444
Jan SchoenfelderUniversitäres Zentrum für Gesundheitswissenschaften am Klinikum Augsburg (UNIKA-T), School of Business and Economics, Universität Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.
Jens O BrunnerUniversitäres Zentrum für Gesundheitswissenschaften am Klinikum Augsburg (UNIKA-T), School of Business and Economics, Universität Augsburg, Universitätsstraße 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The case mix planning problem deals with choosing the ideal composition and volume of patients in a hospital. With many countries having recently changed to systems where hospitals are reimbursed for patients according to their diagnosis, case mix planning has become an important tool in strategic and tactical hospital planning. Selecting patients in such a payment system can have a significant impact on a hospital's revenue. The contribution of this article is to provide the first literature review focusing on the case mix planning problem. We describe the problem, distinguish it from similar planning problems, and evaluate the existing literature with regard to problem structure and managerial impact. Further, we identify gaps in the literature. We hope to foster research in the field of case mix planning, which only lately has received growing attention despite its fundamental economic impact on hospitals.

Indexed as

Diagnosis-Related GroupsHospitalsForecastingHumansCase mix planningHealth careLiterature reviewStrategic planning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.