1 / 16

Pseudo Efficient Frontier of Outpatient Appointment Walk-ins in Taiwan

Pseudo Efficient Frontier of Outpatient Appointment Walk-ins in Taiwan. Fenghueih Huarng Dept. of Business Adm Southern Taiwan Univ. of Technology. Why Walk-in?. Patient ’ s habit (Taiwan starts pre-register since 1980.) Lack of good appointment system —

sonora
Télécharger la présentation

Pseudo Efficient Frontier of Outpatient Appointment Walk-ins in Taiwan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pseudo Efficient Frontier of Outpatient Appointment Walk-ins in Taiwan Fenghueih Huarng Dept. of Business Adm Southern Taiwan Univ. of Technology

  2. Why Walk-in? • Patient’s habit (Taiwan starts pre-register since 1980.) • Lack of good appointment system— ‧pre-register given only sequence number ( no appointed time) ‧late penalty for pre-register ( every 10th, more 3,etc.) • Different clinic nature ‧Fetter & Thompson (1996) — two air force hospitals. average 37% walk-in, pediatric 55~58% walk-in and call-in, urology 7~11%, dermatology 37.5% —clinic TV pediatric 15.2% walk-in, 42.7% call-in ‧Babes & Sarma (1991) — Algeria ‧Liu & Liu (1998) — Hong Kong

  3. Motivation • Lack of good pre-registration system • High percentage of walk-in • Time lag between registration & consultation ‧accumulation of walk-in patients before consultation ‧schedule late arrival of first pre-registered • Understand the impacts of walk-in arrival rate & pre-register ratio

  4. Simulation Setting • Register 8:00 Am ~ 11:30 (210min) Consult 8:30 Am ~ 12:00 Noon (210min) • # of patient per session (N): 20 ( m = 10.5 min), 60 ( m = 3.5 min) • Service-time distribution: exponentially, cv = 1 m uniformally , cv = 0.2 m , 0.5 m • No-show ratio is fixed to 0.1 • Pre-registration ratio: α = 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 • Walk-in arrival rate: λ=1.5, 2.0 (Homo Poisson) • Simulation runs 10000 times for evaluating criteria • Criteria: average waiting time per patient (TIQ) overtime per session mean inter-arrival time depends on (N,α)

  5. Benchmark ASR(even # given to appointment) • A1 = tlag + m • If a <= 0.5, Ai = Ai-1 + 2m , i = 2, …, aN • If a > 0.5. Ai = Ai-1 + 2m , i = 2, …, (1-a)N Ai = Ai-1 + m , i = (1-a)N+1, …, N Note: (1) Ai = arrival time of ith appointment (2) tlag = 30 minutes (3) the patient with least sequence # has highest priority (4) no penalty for pre-register ( punctuality assumption) (5) the best rule has been used in practice in Taiwan

  6. V-I ASR3(p, q, r, k)A1 = tlag + kfirst * p * mA(i+1) = Ai + q*m i = 1,2, …,k-1A(i+1) = Ai + r*m i = k,…,(aN-1) Equal Spacing ASR2(p, q)A1 = tlag + kfirst * p * mA(i+1)= Ai + q*m, i=1,2, …,aN-1 Kfirst = estimate accumulated walk-ins before 8:30AM = l * (1- a) * N * 30/210

  7. Setting of parameters p, q, r, k

  8. p ↑ PEF move upward & leftward Fig.1 cv=1.0,N=20,α=0.3,λ=1.5

  9. Fig.2 cv=0.2,N=60,α=0.7,λ=1.5

  10. Results(1) ASR2(p,q) is worse or not better than ASR3(p,q,r,k) Fig 3 N=20, cv=0.2, l = 1.5, a = 0.3~0.7

  11. Pseudo Efficient Frontiers

  12. pseudo efficient frontier Fig4. N=20,λ=1.5 Fig5. N=20,λ=2 Fig 6. N=60,λ=1.5 Fig 7. N=60,λ=2.

  13. Results (2)Compare Fig 4 ~Fig 7 cv ↓ →TIQ ↓，overtime ↓, slope is steeper（Same as previous literatures） (3) Compare Fig 4 ~Fig 7 α↑→TIQ ↓，overtime ↓ (4) Compare Fig 4& 5（compare Fig 6 & 7） λ↑→TIQ↑，overtime ↓ Fig 4. N=20,λ=1.5 Fig 5. N=20,λ=2

  14. (5) Compare Fig 4 & 6（Compare Fig 5 & 7） N=20, m =10.5minutes; N=60, m =3.5miute(* Different setting from previous literature) • Consider absolute time unit (in minute) N ↑→TIQ ↓，overtime is similar • Consider TIQ in terms of service time (m) => TIQ/m N ↑→TIQ/m ↑，overtime is similar Fig 4. N=20,λ=1.5 Fig 6. N=60,λ=1.5

  15. Conclusions • Walk-in practice need academic research • Investigate two types of ASR 1. equal spacing ASR2(p,q), 2. variable-interval ASR3(p,q,r,k) * ASR2 is a subset of ASR3 • Delay the first appointment • Pseudo efficient frontiers of ASR3 is better (or not worse) than PEF of ASR3 • Cv ↓ or α↑, TIQ↓ , overtime↓  PEF improved toward southwestern • λ↑ TIQ↑, overtime↓ trade-off • N↑ TIQ/m↑ system getting worse

  16. Future Research • Time lag ↑, more accumulation of walk-ins before consultation, the impact of delaying A2↑. • “time lag=0” fits for other country Appointment problem with walk-in(Fetter & Thompson,1996) and for Taiwan with electronical records. • Need to develop different ASR for moving PEF downward & leftward • Consider different walk-in arrival distribution (NHPP) • May consider different service distribution (Erlang, Gamma, Lognormal, …, etc). • May consider different types of patient (new vs. returned) • Robustness of ASR

More Related