4.2 Article

Emergency patient flow forecasting in the radiology department

Journal

HEALTH INFORMATICS JOURNAL
Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 2362-2374

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1460458220901889

Keywords

contributing variable; daily radiology emergency patient flow; linear model; nonlinear model

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71532007, 71131006, 71874116, 71904138]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The accurate forecast of radiology emergency patient flow is of great importance to optimize appointment scheduling decisions. This study used a multi-model approach to forecast daily radiology emergency patient flow with consideration of different patient sources. We constructed six linear and nonlinear models by considering the lag effects and corresponding time factors. The autoregressive integrated moving average and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) were selected from the category of linear models, whereas linear-and-radial support vector regression models, random forests and adaptive boosting were chosen from the category of nonlinear models. The models were applied to 4-year daily emergency visits data in the radiology department of West China Hospital in Chengdu, China. The mean absolute percentage error of six models ranged from 8.56 to 9.36 percent for emergency department patients, whereas it varied from 10.90 to 14.39 percent for ward patients. The best-performing model for total radiology visits was Lasso, which yielded a mean absolute percentage error of 7.06 percent. The arrival patterns of emergency department and total radiology emergency patient flows could be modeled by linear processes. By contrast, the nonlinear model performed best for ward patient flow. These findings will benefit hospital managers in managing efficient patient flow, thus improving service quality and increasing patient satisfaction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available