ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Forecast-Driven Dynamic Physician Staffing in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department crowding is a persistent threat to acute care quality, yet predictive models for ED demand have rarely been translated into prospective operational staffing interventions. Here we report a prospective single-center quasi-experimental pilot study evaluating forecast-driven dynamic physician scheduling in the pediatric ED of Hacettepe University Ihsan Dogramaci Children's Hospital (December 2024 to May 2025). Using a deep learning demand forecasting model (TiDE-RIN) combined with linear programming, we determined daily physician counts (range 3 to 6) for evening shifts (16:00 to 24:00) during days 1 to 15 of each month; days 16 to end of month maintained the institution's standard fixed four-physician schedule. Among after-hours visits with valid disposition timestamps (n = 9,626), mean post-evaluation length of stay (PE-LOS) was 175.9 min in the intervention arm and 184.0 min in the control arm (unadjusted difference 8.2 min; propensity-score-matched 7.9 min, median 10.0; stabilised inverse-probability weighting 8.5 min). Because staffing was allocated by calendar day, inference was clustered on the 182 study days: the two-way fixed-effects arm contrast was a reduction of 8.9 min (95% CI - 22.5 to + 4.8; p = 0.20) and the fully covariate-adjusted contrast 11.0 min (95% CI - 24.4 to + 2.5; p = 0.11). All design-consistent specifications placed the reduction between 4 and 11 min, none excluded no effect under day-level clustering, and the pilot was not powered for a difference of this size. Diagnostic testing was modestly lower (any-test rate 0.51 versus 0.54; p = 0.009). Effects were concentrated among lower-acuity patients and during the early-evening demand peak, and the optimised schedule allocated physicians demand-responsively (mean 4.31 versus 4.00 per shift) with no signal of compromised short-term patient safety, although per-physician workload effects did not reach significance in this pilot. Spillover analysis confirmed no progressive improvement in the concurrent control period. In this prospective pilot, coupling deep learning demand forecasting with optimisation-based physician scheduling was associated with a consistent but modest reduction in PE-LOS whose confidence interval included no effect, supporting feasibility and motivating multi-centre evaluation, and directly addressing the translational gap between predictive model development and real-world clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42789120What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.