Advertisement

Human and Artificial Scheduling System for Operating Rooms

  • P. S. Stepaniak
  • R. A. C. van der Velden
  • J. van de Klundert
  • A. P. M. Wagelmans
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 168)

Abstract

Operating theatres experience dynamic situations that result from unanticipated developments in scheduled cases, arrival of emergency cases and the scheduling decisions made during the day by the operating room coordinator (ORC). The task of the ORC is to ensure that operating rooms (ORs) finish on time and that all scheduled cases as well as the emergency cases are completed. At the end of each day, however, ORs may finish too early or too late because cases have experienced delays or been canceled. Delays or cancelations add to the patient’s inherent anxiety associated with surgery and engenders anger and frustration. They have been shown to be an important determinant of patient dissatisfaction across the continuum of preoperative-operative-postoperative care. Recent research (Stepaniak et al. (2009) Anesth Analg 108:1249–1256) addresses how the risk attitude of an ORC affects the quality of the scheduling decision making. In this chapter you will learn about the interaction between the personality of both a human and an artificial OR scheduler, learn about the effects on the decision the OR scheduler makes and the quality of the resulting OR schedule. Therefore, we formalize risk attitudes in heuristics developed to solve the real-time scheduling problems ORCs face during the day.

Keywords

Operating Room Risk Aversion Service Time Risk Attitude Emergency Case 
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.

References

  1. ACOG Committee Opinion (2006) Patient safety in the surgical environment. Obstet Gynecol 107:429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaulieu H, Ferland JA, Gendron B, Michelon P (2000) A mathematical programming approach for scheduling physicians in the emergency room. Health Care Manag Sci 3:19–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertrand JWM, Wortmann JC, Wijngaard J (1990) Production control: a structural and design oriented approach. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Cao Z, Zhang Y (2007) Scheduling with rejection and non-identical job arrivals. J Syst Sci Complex 20:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cao Z, Yang XA (2009) PTAS for parallel batch scheduling with rejection and dynamic job arrivals. Theor Comput Sci 410:27–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao Z, Wang Z, Zhang Y, Liu S (2006) On several scheduling problems with rejection or discretely compressible processing times. Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, Beijing, pp 90–98Google Scholar
  7. Carter MW, Lapierre SD (2001) Scheduling emergency room physicians. Health Care Manag Sci 4:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnetski JR (1984) Scheduling operating room surgical procedures with early and late completion penalty costs. J Oper Manag 5:91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Vries G, Bertrand JWM, Vissers JMH (1999) Design requirements for healthcare production control systems. Prod Control Plan 10:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delesie L (1998) Bridging the gap between clinicians and health managers. Eur J Oper Res 8:28–35Google Scholar
  11. Dexter F, Macario A (2004) When to allocate operating room time to increase operating room efficiency. Anesth Analg 98:758–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dexter F, Traub RD (2000) Sequencing cases in the operating room: predicting whether one surgical case will last longer than another. Anesth Analg 90:975–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dexter F, Macario A, Traub RD (1999a) Which algorithm for scheduling add-on elective cases to maximizes operating room utilization? Use of bin packing algoritms and fuzzy constraints in operating room management. Anesthesiology 91:1491–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dexter F, Macario A, Traub RD, Hopwood M, Lubarsky DA (1999b) An operating room scheduling strategy to maximize the use of operating room block time: computer simulation of patient scheduling and survey of patients preferences for surgical waiting time. Anesth Analg 89(1):7–20Google Scholar
  15. Dexter F, Macario A, Traub RD, Hopwood M, Lubarsky DA (1999c) An operating room scheduling strategy to maximize the use of operating room block time: computer simulation of patient scheduling and survey of patients’ preferences for surgical waiting time. Anesth Analg 89:7–20Google Scholar
  16. Dexter F, Epstein RH, Marsh HM (2001) A statistical analysis of weekday operating room anesthesia group staffing costs at nine independently managed surgical suites. Anesth Analg 92:1493–1498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dexter F, Traub RD, Macario A (2003) How to release allocated operating room time to increase efficiency: predicting which surgical service will have the most underutilized operating room time. Anesth Analg 96:507–512Google Scholar
  18. Engels DW, Karger DR, Kolliopoulos SG, Sengupta S, Uma RN, Wein J (2003) Techniques for scheduling with rejection. J Algorithms 49:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein L, Noga J, Woeginger GJ (2002) On-line scheduling of unit time cases with rejection: minimizing the total completion time. Oper Res Lett 30:415–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eysenck SBG, Esenck HJ (1977) The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 16:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fei H, Chu C, Artiba A, Meskens N (2004) Planification des salles opératoires : résolution par la génération de colonnes et la programmation dynamique, 2ème Conférence Francophone en Gestion et Ingénierie des Systèmes Hospitaliers, GISEH, Mons, Belgique, 9–11 SeptGoogle Scholar
  22. Fleischer R, Wahl M (2000) Online scheduling revisited. J Sched 3:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Franken RE (1988) Sensation seeking, decision making styles and preference for individual responsibility. Pers Individ Differ 9:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jebali A, Hadjalouane AB, Ladet P (2005). Operating rooms scheduling, International Journal of Production Economics, Corrected Proof, Accessed 29 June 2005 (in press)Google Scholar
  25. Karger DR, Phillips SJ, Torng E (1996) A better algorithm for an ancient scheduling problem. J Algorithms 20:400–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamiri M, Xie X, Dolgui A, Grimaud F (2008) A stochastic model for operating rooms planning with elective and emergency surgery demands. Eur J Oper Res 185:1026–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lapierre SD, Batson C, McCaskey S (1999) Improving on-time performance in health care organisations: a case study. Health Care Manag Sci 2:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Litvak E, Long MC (2000) Cost and quality under managed care: irreconcilable differences? Am J Manag Care 6:305–312Google Scholar
  29. Litvak E, Buerhues PI, Davidoff F, Long M et al (2005) Managing unnecessary variability in patient demand to reduce nursing stress and improve patient safety. J Qual Patients Saf 31:330–338Google Scholar
  30. Magerlein JM, Martin JB (1978) Surgical demand scheduling: a review. Health Serv Res 13(4):418–433Google Scholar
  31. Makary MA, Sexton BJ, Freischlag JA, Millman EA et al (2006) Patient safety in surgery. Ann Surg 243:628–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marcon E, Kharraja S, Simmonet G (2003) The operating theatre scheduling: an approach centered on the follow-up of the risk of no realization of the planning. Int J Prod Econ 85(1):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLaughlin CP, Kaluzny AD (2006) Continuous quality improvement in health care. 3rd edn. Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  34. McManus ML, Long MC, Cooper A et al (2003) Variability in surgical caseload and access to intensive care services. Anesthesiology 98:1491–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Megow N, Uetz M, Vredeveld T (2006) Models and algorithms for stochastic online scheduling. Math Oper Res 31:513–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Möhring RH, Radermacher FJ, Weiss G (1984) Stochastic scheduling problems: general strategies. Zeitschrift für Operations Research 28:193–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Möhring RH, Schulz AS, Uetz M (1999) Approximation in stochastic scheduling: the power of LP-based priority policies. J ACM 46:924–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morton A (2009) Analysis: What’s the difference between a hospital and a bottling factory. Br Med J 339:2727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ozkarahan I (2000) Allocation of surgeries to operating rooms by goal programming. J Med Syst 24(6):339–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reason J (2005) Safety in the operating theatre part 2: human error and organizational failure. Qual Saf Health Care 14:56–60Google Scholar
  41. Royston G (1998) Shifting the balance of care into the 21st century. Eur J Oper Res 105:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rudin JF (2001) Improved bounds for the on-line scheduling problem. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at DallasGoogle Scholar
  43. Sgall J (1998) On-line scheduling: a survey. Online algorithms: the state of the art. Comput Sci 1442:196–231Google Scholar
  44. Simon H (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sitkin SB, Pablo AL (1992) Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behaviour. Acad Manag Rev 17:9–38Google Scholar
  46. Stachota P, Normandin P (2003) Reasons registered nurses leave or change employment status. J Nurs Adm 33(2):111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stepaniak PS (2010) Modeling and management of variation in the operating theatre. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  48. Stepaniak PS, Mannaerts GHH, de Quelerij M, de Vries G (2009) The effect of the operating room coordinators risk appreciation on operating room efficiency. Anesth Analg 108:1249–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stepaniak PS, Heij C, Mannaerts GHH, de Quelerij M, de Vries G (2010) Modeling procedure and surgical times for current procedural terminology-anesthesia-surgeon combinations and evaluation in terms of case-duration prediction and operating room efficiency: a multicenter study. Anesth Analg 106:1232–1245Google Scholar
  50. Tannat G (2002) Design for six sigma: launching new products and services without failure. Gower Publishing Limited, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Thomson TP, Brown H (2002) Turnover of licensed nurses in skilled nursing facilities. Nurs Econ 20(2):66–69Google Scholar
  52. Trimpop RM, Kerr JH, Kirkcaldy BD (1999) Comparing personality constructs of risk-taking behaviour. Pers Individ Differ 26:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van der Velden R (2010) Multi-objective analysis of online and offline surgical scheduling heuristics. Master thesis, Erasmus UniversityGoogle Scholar
  54. Vissers J, Beech R (2005) Health operations management. Patient flow logistics in health care. In: Vissers J, Beech R (eds) Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  55. Vissers JMH, Bertrand JWM, De Vries G (2001) A framework for production control in health care organisations. Prod Control Plan 12:591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber EU, Hsee CK, Sokolowska J (1998) What folkore tells about risk and risk taking? Cross-cultural comparisons of America, German and Chinese proverbs. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 75:170–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wickizer TM (1991) Effect of hospital utilization review on medical expenditures in selected diagnostic areas: an exploratory study. Am J Public Health 81:482–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zuckerman M (1990) The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. J Pers 59:313–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zuckerman M (1994) An alternative five-factor model for personality. In: Halverson CF, Kohnstamm GA, Martin RP (eds) The developing structure of temperament and personality from infacy to adulthood. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 53–68Google Scholar
  60. Zuckerman M (2002) Zuckerman–Kuhlman personality questionnaire (ZKPQ): an alternative five factorial. In: DeRaad B (ed) Big five assessment. Hogerefe and Huber Publishers, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  61. Zuckerman M, Kuhlman M (2000) Personality and risk taking: common biosocial factors. J Pers 68:999–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC  2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. S. Stepaniak
    • 1
  • R. A. C. van der Velden
    • 1
  • J. van de Klundert
    • 1
  • A. P. M. Wagelmans
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Health Policy and ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Econometric Institute, Erasmus School of EconomicsErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations