↓ Skip to main content

Strategic level proton therapy patient admission planning: a Markov decision process modeling approach

Overview of attention for article published in Health Care Management Science, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Strategic level proton therapy patient admission planning: a Markov decision process modeling approach
Published in
Health Care Management Science, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10729-016-9354-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ridvan Gedik, Shengfan Zhang, Chase Rainwater

Abstract

A relatively new consideration in proton therapy planning is the requirement that the mix of patients treated from different categories satisfy desired mix percentages. Deviations from these percentages and their impacts on operational capabilities are of particular interest to healthcare planners. In this study, we investigate intelligent ways of admitting patients to a proton therapy facility that maximize the total expected number of treatment sessions (fractions) delivered to patients in a planning period with stochastic patient arrivals and penalize the deviation from the patient mix restrictions. We propose a Markov Decision Process (MDP) model that provides very useful insights in determining the best patient admission policies in the case of an unexpected opening in the facility (i.e., no-shows, appointment cancellations, etc.). In order to overcome the curse of dimensionality for larger and more realistic instances, we propose an aggregate MDP model that is able to approximate optimal patient admission policies using the worded weight aggregation technique. Our models are applicable to healthcare treatment facilities throughout the United States, but are motivated by collaboration with the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute (UFPTI).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 16 47%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Management Science
#206
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,972
of 396,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Management Science
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.