4.7 Article

Prioritizing the elective surgery patient admission in a Chinese public tertiary hospital using the hesitant fuzzy linguistic ORESTE method

期刊

APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING
卷 78, 期 -, 页码 407-419

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.02.001

关键词

Elective surgery patient admission; Multiple criteria decision making; Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set; ORESTE; Chinese public tertiary hospital

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71771156, 71532007]
  2. Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support, China Project Plan [2016FZ0080]
  3. Key Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences in Sichuan Province [LYC18-02, DSWL18-2]
  4. Spark Project of Innovation at Sichuan University [2018hhs-43]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In public health systems around the world, there are not enough medical resources to provide elective (e.g., scheduled or non-emergency) services for all patients immediately. One feasible solution is to prioritize patients by taking into account a variety of factors, such as disease severity, waiting time, and disease types. This is a typical Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. To solve this problem, in this paper, we first conduct an investigation on the admission process, and obtain 16 indicators affecting patients' admission, which form a criteria system. Since there is much vague and uncertain information which can be depicted by the hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set effectively for these indicators, we then apply a powerful MCDM method, named the hesitant fuzzy linguistic ORESTE, to prioritize the elective surgery patient admission in a Chinese public tertiary hospital, the West China Hospital. Robust results are obtained by performing a sensitivity analysis with six scenarios. We also compare the results with those derived by other HFL-MCDM methods. It is illustrated that the hesitant fuzzy linguistic ORESTE can help hospitals flexibly manage the patient admissions. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据