4.6 Article

Equity distribution of quality evaluation reports to doctors in health care organizations

Journal

PEERJ COMPUTER SCIENCE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.819

Keywords

Load balancing; Load work; Health care; Optimization

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research, University of Hafr Al-Batin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study is to find a method to ensure the equitable distribution of patient reports among doctors in a healthcare organization. A mathematical model and various heuristics are proposed and evaluated through experiments.
There are volumes of patient reports generated in any healthcare organization daily. The reports can be very lengthy or of few pages. Maintaining records of patients is essential for ensuring quality medical care. Doctors, apart from their routine activities, are also responsible to sort, examine and archive the generated reports. However, this process consumes doctors' time, who are already hard-pressed for time. The objective of this study is to search for a method that can assign reports to doctors to ensure equitable and fair distribution of the overall workload. As a part of the solution, a mathematical model will be proposed to perform different developed heuristics. An experimental evaluation using different classes with a total of 2,450 different instances will be tested to measure the performance of the developed heuristics in terms of, elapsed time and gap value calculations. The clustering heuristics which is based on two groups is the best heuristic with 96.1% for the small instances and 98% for the big scale instances. The contribution of this work is based on employing dispatching rules with several variants; randomization approach, clustering methods; probabilistic method, and iterative methods approach to assign all given reports to doctors while ensuring the equitable distribution of the paper workload.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available