Stochastic programming for outpatient scheduling with flexible inpatient exam accommodation

Health Care Management Science (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

This study is concerned with the determination of an optimal appointment schedule in an outpatient-inpatient hospital system where the inpatient exams can be cancelled based on certain rules while the outpatient exams cannot be cancelled. Stochastic programming models were formulated and solved to tackle the stochasticity in the procedure durations and patient arrival patterns. The first model, a two-stage stochastic programming model, is formulated to optimize the slot size. The second model further optimizes the inpatient block (IPB) placement and slot size simultaneously. A computational method is developed to solve the second optimization problem. A case study is conducted using the data from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) centers of Lahey Hospital and Medical Center (LHMC). The current schedule and the schedules obtained from the optimization models are evaluated and compared using simulation based on FlexSim Healthcare. Results indicate that the overall weighted cost can be reduced by 11.6% by optimizing the slot size and can be further reduced by an additional 12.6% by optimizing slot size and IPB placement simultaneously. Three commonly used sequencing rules (IPBEG, OPBEG, and a variant of ALTER rule) were also evaluated. The results showed that when optimization tools are not available, ALTER variant which evenly distributes the IPBs across the day has the best performance. Sensitivity analysis of weights for patient waiting time, machine idle time and exam cancellations further supports the superiority of ALTER variant sequencing rules compared to the other sequencing methods. A Pareto frontier was also developed and presented between patient waiting time and machine idle time to enable medical centers with different priorities to obtain solutions that accurately reflect their respective optimal tradeoffs. An extended optimization model was also developed to incorporate the emergency patient arrivals. The optimal schedules from the extended model show only minor differences compared to those from the original model, thus proving the robustness of the scheduling solutions obtained from our optimal models against the impacts of emergency patient arrivals.

Highlights

  • Timestamped operational data was analyzed to identify sources of uncertainty and delays.

  • Stochastic programming models were developed to optimize slot size and inpatient block placement.

  • A case study showed that the optimized schedules can reduce overall costs by 23%.

  • Distributing inpatient and outpatient slots evenly throughout the day provides the best performance.

  • A Pareto frontier was developed to allow practitioners to choose their own best tradeoffs between multiple objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  1. 1.

    Ahmadi-Javid A, Jalali Z, Klassen KJ (2017) Outpatient appointment systems in healthcare: a review of optimization studies. Eur J Oper Res 258(1):3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.06.064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Begen MA, Queyranne M (2011) Appointment scheduling with discrete random durations. Math Oper Res 36(2):240–257. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.1110.0489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Begen MA, Levi R, Queyranne M (2012) Technical note – a sampling-based approach to appointment scheduling. Operations Research 60(3):675–681 Retrieved from JSTOR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Berg B, Denton B, Erdogan S, Rohleder T, Huschka T (2014) Optimal booking and scheduling in outpatient procedure centers. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305054814000987. Accessed 29 Oct 2020.

  5. 5.

    Bhattacharjee P, Ray PK (2016) Simulation modelling and analysis of appointment system performance for multiple classes of patients in a hospital: a case study. Operations Research for Health Care 8:71–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2015.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cayirli T, Veral E, Rosen H (2008) Assessment of patient classification in appointment system design. Prod Oper Manag 17(3):338–353. https://doi.org/10.3401/poms.1080.0031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Denton B, Gupta D (2003) A sequential bounding approach for optimal appointment scheduling. IIE Trans 35(11):1003–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170304395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Epic (n.d.). https://www.epic.com/

  11. 11.

    Forest, W (2018) MRI scan volume drops in 2017, but new purchases planned. https://www.auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=119720

  12. 12.

    Fu MC (2002) Feature article: optimization for simulation: theory vs. practice. INFORMS J Comput 14(3):192–215. https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.14.3.192.113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ge D, Wan G, Wang Z, Zhang J (2013) A note on appointment scheduling with piecewise linear cost functions. Math Oper Res 39(4):1244–1251. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.2013.0631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    GLPK version 4.65. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.gnu.org/software/glpk/

  15. 15.

    Ho C-J, Lau H-S (1992) Minimizing total cost in scheduling outpatient appointments. Manag Sci 38(12):1750–1764. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.38.12.1750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ho C-J, Lau H-S (1999) Evaluating the impact of operating conditions on the performance of appointment scheduling rules in service systems. Eur J Oper Res 112(3):542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00393-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jansson B (1966) Choosing a good appointment system – a study of queues of the type (D, M, 1). Oper Res 14:292–312. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.14.2.292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Katre AN (2014) Assessment of the correlation between appointment scheduling and patient satisfaction in a pediatric dental setup. Int J Dent 2014:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/453237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kim, S, Pasupathy, R, and Henderson, SG (2015) A guide to sample average approximation. In: Fu MC (ed) Handbook of simulation optimization. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1384-8_8, (pp. 207–243)

  20. 20.

    Klassen KJ, Rohleder TR (1996) Scheduling outpatient appointments in a dynamic environment. J Oper Manag 14(2):83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(95)00044-5

  21. 21.

    Klassen KJ, Rohleder TR (2004) Outpatient appointment scheduling with urgent clients in a dynamic, multi-period environment. Int J Serv Ind Manag 15(2):167–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410532493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Klassen KJ, Yoogalingam R (2009) Improving performance in outpatient appointment services with a simulation optimization approach. Prod Oper Manag 18(4):447–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2009.01021.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Klassen KJ, Yoogalingam R (2014) Strategies for appointment policy design with patient unpunctuality. Decis Sci 45:881–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Klassen KJ, Yoogalingam R (2019) Appointment scheduling in multi-stage outpatient clinics. Health Care Manag Sci 22:229–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-018-9434-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lal TM, Roh T and Huschka T (2015) Simulation based optimization: applications in healthcare. 2015 winter simulation conference (WSC), pp. 1261–1271

  26. 26.

    Mancilla C, Storer R (2012) A sample average approximation approach to stochastic appointment sequencing and scheduling. IIE Trans 44(8):655–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/0740817X.2011.635174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mercer A (1960) A queueing problem in which the arrival times of the customers are scheduled. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodol) 22(1):108–113 Retrieved from JSTOR

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Michael M, Schaffer SD, Egan PL, Little BB, Pritchard PS (2013) Improving wait times and patient satisfaction in primary care. J Healthc Qual 35(2):50–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhq.12004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nordgren WB (2003) Flexsim simulation environment, published in the proceedings of winter simulation conference. IEEE, Phoenix

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Patrick J, Puterman ML (2007) Improving resource utilization for diagnostic services through flexible inpatient scheduling: a method for improving resource utilization. J Oper Res Soc 58(2):235–245. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Sabrai F, Daganzo CF (1989) Approximate expressions for queueing systems with scheduled arrivals and established service order. Transp Sci 23(3):159–165 Retrieved from JSTOR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sun, J, Lin, Q, Zhao, P, Zhang, Q, Xu, K, Chen, H, Hu, CJ, Stuntz, M, Li, Hong, and Liu, Y (2017) Reducing waiting time and raising outpatient satisfaction in a Chinese public tertiary general hospital-an interrupted time series study. BMC Publ Health 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4667-z

  33. 33.

    Wang PP (1997) Optimally scheduling N customer arrival times for a single-server system. Comput Oper Res 24(8):703–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(96)00093-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, College, 14 Engineering Dr, Hanover, NH, 03755, USA

    Yifei Sun & Vikrant Vaze

  2. Philips Healthcare, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Usha Nandini Raghavan & Christopher S Hall

  3. Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA

    Patricia Doyle, Stacey Sullivan Richard & Christoph Wald

Authors
  1. Yifei Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Usha Nandini Raghavan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikrant Vaze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher S Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patricia Doyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stacey Sullivan Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christoph Wald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yifei Sun.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, Y., Raghavan, U.N., Vaze, V. et al. Stochastic programming for outpatient scheduling with flexible inpatient exam accommodation. Health Care Manag Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-020-09527-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Outpatient scheduling
  • Stochastic programming
  • Discrete-event simulation
  • Inpatient exam cancellation
  • Appointment scheduling/sequencing
  • Operations research