Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36631506›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

An operations research approach to automated patient scheduling for eye care using a multi-criteria decision support tool.

Luke Evans, Jennifer H Acton, Carla Hiscott, Daniel Gartner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luke Evans *School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Jennifer H Acton *School of Optometry and Vision Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. actonj@cardiff.ac.uk.
Carla Hiscott *Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Newport, UK.
Daniel Gartner *School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Aneurin Bevan University Health Board · GBCardiff University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inefficient management of resources and waiting lists for high-risk ophthalmology patients can contribute to sight loss. The aim was to develop a decision support tool which determines an optimal patient schedule for ophthalmology patients. Our approach considers available booking slots as well as patient-specific factors. Using standard software (Microsoft Excel and OpenSolver), an operations research approach was used to formulate a mathematical model. Given a set of patients and clinic capacities, the model objective was to schedule patients efficiently depending on eyecare measure risk factors, referral-to-treatment times and targets, patient locations and slot availabilities over a pre-defined planning horizon. Our decision support tool can feedback whether or not a patient is scheduled. If a patient is scheduled, the tool determines the optimal date and location to book the patients' appointments, with a score provided to show the associated value of the decisions made. Our dataset from 519 patients showed optimal prioritization based on location, risk of serious vision loss/damage and the referral-to-treatment time. Given the constraints of available slots, managers can input hospital-specific parameters such as demand and capacity into our model. The model can be applied and implemented immediately, without the need for additional software, to generate an optimized patient schedule.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesOperations ResearchAmbulatory Care FacilitiesHumansSoftwareWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID36631506
PMCPMC9832406
OpenAlexW4315647543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.