Advertisement

Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 61–76 | Cite as

A Proposed Scheduling Model To Improve Use of Computed Tomography Facilities

  • William R. Reinus
  • Amit Enyan
  • Patrice Flanagan
  • Britton Pim
  • D. Skip Sallee
  • James Segrist
Article

Abstract

A nonpreemptive queuing system based upon operations management theory is used to evaluate expected steady state wait periods for traditional and distributed CT scheduling models. Both models are constructed using two classes of patient service—emergent and nonemergent. The former model uses only one point of service per scanner while the latter employs multiple points of service in order to accomplish all of the functions necessary to complete a CT scan. Sample data are drawn from a tertiary care hospital-based system using a traditional service model. Comparison of a traditional and distributed service system, each with emergent and nonemergent service classes, shows that breaking as many activities as possible out of the scanner should provide substantial improvements in cost efficiency and service for patients having CT scans. Nonemergent patients may experience as much as an 89% reduction in steady-state wait times while emergent patients may experience as much as a 59% reduction in wait times. The cost efficiencies recognized either through increased scanner utilization or reduced scanner needs, even with only modest improvements, should more than offset any additional personnel needed to implement a distributed model. Proper implementation of a distributed scheduling model for CT scanning can provide substantial cost efficiencies and improvements in service for both nonemergent and emergent CT scans.

Keywords

Wait Time Cost Efficiency Schedule Model Service Classis Tomography Facility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Federal Express, Fortune, July 28, 1980, p. 10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kleinfield, N.R., ‘Conquering Those Killer Queues,’ The New York Times, September 25, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winter, J., Efficiency of utilization of a computed tomography scanner. AJR 131:89–93, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evens, R.G., and Jost, R.G., Economic analysis of body computed tomography units including data on utilization. Radiology 127:151–157, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evens, R.G., and Jost, R.G., Economic analysis of computed tomography units. AJR 127:191–198, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seltzer, S.E., Saini, S., Bramson, R.T., Kelly, P., and Levine, L., Can academic radiology departments become more efficient and cost less? Radiology 209:405–410, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hillier, F.S., and Lieberman, G.J., Introduction to Operations Research, McGraw Hill, 6th Edition, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conover, W.J., Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Wiley, 3rd Edition, 1999, p. 430.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maister, D.H., The Psychology of Waiting Lines, The Service Encounter, (J.A. Czepiel, M.R. Solomon, and C.F. Surprenant, eds.), Lexington Books, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rhea, J.T., Thrall, J.H., Saini, S., and Sumner, J., Improving the efficiency and service of computed tomographic scanning. Acad. Radiol. 1:164–170, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Reinus
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amit Enyan
    • 2
  • Patrice Flanagan
    • 2
  • Britton Pim
    • 2
  • D. Skip Sallee
    • 2
  • James Segrist
    • 2
  1. 1.Mallinckrodt Institute of RadiologyWashington University School of MedicineSt. Louis
  2. 2.Olin School of BusinessWashington UniversitySt. Louis

Personalised recommendations