4.7 Article

On the design of custom packs: grouping of medical disposable items for surgeries

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 53, 期 24, 页码 7343-7359

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2015.1061221

关键词

health care services; combinatorial optimisation; integer linear programming; case study

资金

  1. Vlerick Academic Research Fund
  2. Flemish government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A custom pack combines medical disposable items into a single sterile package that is used for surgical procedures. Although custom packs are gaining importance in hospitals due to their potential benefits in reducing surgery setup times, little is known on methodologies to configure them, especially if the number of medical items, procedure types and surgeons is large. In this paper, we propose a mathematical programming approach to guide hospitals in developing or reconfiguring their custom packs. In particular, we are interested in minimising points of touch, which we define as a measure for physical contact between staff and medical materials. Starting from an integer non-linear programming model, we develop both an exact linear programming (LP) solution approach and an LP-based heuristic. Next, we also describe a simulated annealing approach to benchmark the mathematical programming methods. A computational experiment, based on real data of a medium-sized Belgian hospital, compares the optimised results with the performance of the hospital's current configuration settings and indicates how to improve future usage. Next to this base case, we introduce scenarios in which we examine to what extent the results are sensitive for waste, i.e. adding more items to the custom pack than is technically required for some of the custom pack's procedures, since this can increase its applicability towards other procedures. We point at some interesting insights that can be taken up by the hospital management to guide the configuration and accompanying negotiation processes.

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