Advertisement

OR Spectrum

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 371–390 | Cite as

Efficiency evaluation for pooling resources in health care

  • Peter T. Vanberkel
  • Richard J. Boucherie
  • Erwin W. Hans
  • Johann L. Hurink
  • Nelly Litvak
Open Access
Regular Article

Abstract

Hospitals traditionally segregate resources into centralized functional departments such as diagnostic departments, ambulatory care centers, and nursing wards. In recent years this organizational model has been challenged by the idea that higher quality of care and efficiency in service delivery can be achieved when services are organized around patient groups. Examples include specialized clinics for breast cancer patients and clinical pathways for diabetes patients. Hospitals are struggling with the question of whether to become more centralized to achieve economies of scale or more decentralized to achieve economies of focus. In this paper we examine service and patient group characteristics to study the conditions where a centralized model is more efficient, and conversely, where a decentralized model is more efficient. This relationship is examined analytically with a queuing model to determine the most influential factors and then with simulation to fine-tune the results. The tradeoffs between economies of scale and economies of focus measured by these models are used to derive general management guidelines.

Keywords

Slotted queueing model Simulation Resource pooling Focused factories Health care modeling 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Allen AO (1990) Probability, statistics and queueing theory. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Ata B, van Mieghem JA (2009) The value of partial resource pooling: Should a service network be integratedor product-focused?. Manag Sci 55(1): 115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake JT, Carter MW, Richardson S (1996) An analysis of emergency room wait time issues via computer simulation. INFOR 34: 263–273Google Scholar
  4. Cattani K, Schmidt GM (2005) The pooling principle. INFORMS Trans Educ 5(2): 17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen JW (1982) The single server queue. In: North-Holland series in applied mathematics and mechanics, vol 8, 2nd edn. North-Holland Publishing Co., AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  6. Fackrell M (2009) Modelling healthcare systems with phase-type distributions. Health Care Manag Sci 12(1): 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2001) Factory physics: foundations of manufacturing management. McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. Huckman RS, Zinner DE (2008) Does focus improve operational performance? Lessons from the management of clinical trials. Strateg Manag J 29(2): 173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hyer N, Wemmerlöv U, Morris J (2009) Performance analysis of a focused hospital unit: the case of an integratedtrauma center. J Oper Manag 27(3): 203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Janssen A, van Leeuwaarden J, Zwart B (2008) Corrected asymptotics for a multi-server queue in the halfin-whitt regime. Queueing Syst 58(4): 261–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Joustra P, vander Sluis E, van Dijk N (2010) To pool or not to pool in hospitals: a theoretical and practical comparison for a radiotherapy outpatient department. Ann Oper Res 178(1): 77–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kremitske DL, West DJ (1997) Patient-focused primary care: a model. Hosp Topics 75(4): 22–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Langabeer J, Ozcan Y (2009) The economics of cancer care: longitudinal changes in provider efficiency. Health Care Manag Sci 12(2): 192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leung GM (2000) Hospitals must become focused factories. Br Med J 320(7239): 942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mandelbaum A, Reiman MI (1998) On pooling in queueing networks. Manag Sci 44(7): 971–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLaughlin CP, Yang S, van Dierdonck R (1995) Professional service organizations and focus. Manag Sci 41(7): 1185–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Newman K (1997) Towards a new health care paradigm. Patient-focused care. The case of Kingston Hospital Trust. J Manag Med 11(6): 357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schneider JE, Miller TR, Ohsfeldt RL, Morrisey MA, Zelner BA, Li P (2008) The economics of specialty hospitals. Med Care Res Rev 65(5): 531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Skinner W (1985) Manufacturing: the formidable competitive weapon. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Tijms HC (2003) A first course in stochastic models. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tiwari V, Heese H (2009) Specialization and competition in healthcare delivery networks. Health Care Manag Sci 12(3): 306–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Dijk NM (2000) On hybrid combination of queueing and simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Winter simulation conference, pp 147–150Google Scholar
  23. van Dijk N, van der Sluis E (2004) To pool or not to pool in call centers. Prod Oper Manag 17: 296–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Dijk NM, van der Sluis E (2009) Pooling is not the answer. Eur J Oper Res 197(1): 415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vanberkel PT, Boucherie RJ, Hans EW, Hurink J, Litvak N (2010) Reallocating resources to focused factories: a case study in chemotherapy. In: Blake J, Carter M (eds) International perspectives on operations research and health care. Proceedings of the 34th meeting of the European Working Group on operational research applied to health services, pp 152–164Google Scholar
  26. Whitt W (1999) Partitioning customers into service groups. Manag Sci 45(11): 1579–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wickramasinghe N, Bloemendal JW, De Bruin AK, Krabbendam JJ (2005) Enabling innovative healthcare delivery through the use of the focusedfactory model: the case of the spine clinic of the future. Int J Innov Learn 2(1): 90–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolstenholme E (1999) A patient flow perspective of UK health services: exploring the case for new “intermediate care” initiatives. Syst Dyn Rev 15(3): 253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter T. Vanberkel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Richard J. Boucherie
    • 2
  • Erwin W. Hans
    • 1
  • Johann L. Hurink
    • 2
  • Nelly Litvak
    • 2
  1. 1.Operational Methods for Production and Logistics, School of Management and GovernanceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations