↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic ambulance dispatching: is the closest-idle policy always optimal?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Dynamic ambulance dispatching: is the closest-idle policy always optimal?
Published in
Health Care Management Science, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10729-016-9368-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. J. Jagtenberg, S. Bhulai, R. D. van der Mei

Abstract

We address the problem of ambulance dispatching, in which we must decide which ambulance to send to an incident in real time. In practice, it is commonly believed that the 'closest idle ambulance' rule is near-optimal and it is used throughout most literature. In this paper, we present alternatives to the classical closest idle ambulance rule. Most ambulance providers as well as researchers focus on minimizing the fraction of arrivals later than a certain threshold time, and we show that significant improvements can be obtained by our alternative policies. The first alternative is based on a Markov decision problem (MDP), that models more than just the number of idle vehicles, while remaining computationally tractable for reasonably-sized ambulance fleets. Second, we propose a heuristic for ambulance dispatching that can handle regions with large numbers of ambulances. Our main focus is on minimizing the fraction of arrivals later than a certain threshold time, but we show that with a small adaptation our MDP can also be used to minimize the average response time. We evaluate our policies by simulating a large emergency medical services region in the Netherlands. For this region, we show that our heuristic reduces the fraction of late arrivals by 18 % compared to the 'closest idle' benchmark policy. A drawback is that this heuristic increases the average response time (for this problem instance with 37 %). Therefore, we do not claim that our heuristic is practically preferable over the closest-idle method. However, our result sheds new light on the popular belief that the closest idle dispatch policy is near-optimal when minimizing the fraction of late arrivals.

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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 71 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Computer Science 4 6%
Mathematics 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 25 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 August 2023.
All research outputs
#7,582,103
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from Health Care Management Science
#83
of 301 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,277
of 339,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Care Management Science
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 301 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 339,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them