Introduction: Optimal scheduling and calendar management in an outpatient chemotherapy unit is a complex process that is driven by a need to focus on safety while accommodating a high degree of variability. Primary constraints are infusion times, staffing resources, chair availability, and unit hours. Methods: We undertook a process to analyze our existing management models across multiple practice settings in our health care system, then developed a model to optimize safety and efficiency. The model was tested in one of the community chemotherapy units. We assessed staffing violations as measured by nurse-to-patient ratios throughout the workday and at key points during treatment. Staffing violations were tracked before and after the implementation of the new model. Results: The new model reduced staffing violations by nearly 50% and required fewer chairs to treat the same number of patients for the selected clinic day. Actual implementation results indicated that the new model leveled the distribution of patients across the workday with an 18% reduction in maximum chair utilization and a 27% reduction in staffing violations. Subsequently, a positive impact on peak pharmacy workload reduced delays by as much as 35 minutes. Nursing staff satisfaction with the new model was positive. Conclusion: We conclude that the proposed optimization approach with regard to nursing resource assignment and workload balance throughout a day effectively improves patient service quality and staff satisfaction.

Engineering has been playing an important role in serving and advancing healthcare. The term “Healthcare Engineering” has been used by professional societies, universities, scientific authors, and the healthcare industry for decades. However, the definition of “Healthcare Engineering” remains ambiguous. The purpose of this position paper is to present a definition of Healthcare Engineering as an academic discipline, an area of research, a field of specialty, and a profession. Healthcare Engineering is defined in terms of what it is, who performs it, where it is performed, and how it is performed, including its purpose, scope, topics, synergy, education/training, contributions, and prospects.

Summary: Patient access to care and long wait times has been identified as major problems in outpatient delivery systems. These aspects impact medical staff productivity, service quality, clinic efficiency, and health-care cost.This study proposed to redesign existing patient types into scheduling groups so that the total cost of clinic flow and scheduling flexibility was minimized. The optimal scheduling group aimed to improve clinic efficiency and accessibility.The proposed approach used the simulation optimization technique and was demonstrated in a Primary Care physician clinic. Patient type included, emergency/urgent care (ER/UC), follow-up (FU), new patient (NP), office visit (OV), physical exam (PE), and well child care (WCC). One scheduling group was designed for this physician. The approach steps were to collect physician treatment time data for each patient type, form the possible scheduling groups, simulate daily clinic flow and patient appointment requests, calculate costs of clinic flow as well as appointment flexibility, and find the scheduling group that minimized the total cost.The cost of clinic flow was minimized at the scheduling group of four, an 8.3% reduction from the group of one. The four groups were: 1. WCC, 2. OV, 3. FU and ER/UC, and 4. PE and NP. The cost of flexibility was always minimized at the group of one. The total cost was minimized at the group of two. WCC was considered separate and the others were grouped together. The total cost reduction was 1.3% from the group of one.This study provided an alternative method of redesigning patient scheduling groups to address the impact on both clinic flow and appointment accessibility. Balance between them ensured the feasibility to the recognized issues of patient service and access to care. The robustness of the proposed method on the changes of clinic conditions was also discussed.

Summary Background Patient access to care has been a known and continuing struggle for many health care providers. In spite of appointment lead time policies set by government or clinics, the problem persists. Justification for how lead time policies are determined is lacking. Objectives This paper proposed a data-driven approach for how to best set feasible appointment target lead times given a clinic’s capacity and appointment requests. Methods The proposed approach reallocates patient visits to minimize the deviation between actual appointment lead time and a feasible target lead time. A step-by-step algorithm was presented and demonstrated for return visit (RV) and new patient (NP) types from a Pediatric clinic excluding planned visits such as well-child exam and the same day urgent appointments. The steps are: 1. Obtain appointment requests; 2. Initialize a target lead time; 3. Set up an initial schedule; 4. Check the feasibility based on appointment availability; 5. Adjust schedule backward to fill appointment slots earlier than the target; 6. Adjust schedule forward for appointments not able to be scheduled earlier or on target to the later slots; 7. Trial different target lead times until the difference between earlier and later lead time is minimized. Results The results indicated a 59% lead time reduction for RVs and a 45% reduction for NPs. The lead time variation was reduced by 75% for both patient types. Additionally, the opportunity for the participating clinic to achieve their organization’s goal of a two-week lead time for RVs and a twoday lead time for NPs is discussed by adjusting capacity to increase one slot for NP and reduce one slot for RV. Conclusions The proposed approach and study findings may help clinics identify feasible appointment lead times. Citation: Huang Y, Bach SM. Appointment lead time policy development to improve patient access to care.

Background Provider burnout due to workload is a significant concern in primary care settings. Workload for primary care providers encompasses both scheduled visit care and non–visit care interactions. These interactions are highly influenced by patients' health conditions or acuity, which can be measured by the Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) score. However, new patients typically have minimal health information beyond social determinants of health (SDOH) to determine ACG score. Objectives This study aims to assess new patient workload by first predicting the ACG score using SDOH, age, and gender and then using this information to estimate the number of appointments (scheduled visit care) and non–visit care interactions. Methods Two years of appointment data were collected for patients who had initial appointment requests in the first year and had the ACG score, appointment, and non–visit care counts in the subsequent year. State-of-art machine learning algorithms were employed to predict ACG scores and compared with current baseline estimation. Linear regression models were then used to predict appointments and non–visit care interactions, integrating demographic data, SDOH, and predicted ACG scores. Results The machine learning methods showed promising results in predicting ACG scores. Besides the decision tree, all other methods performed at least 9% better in accuracy than the baseline approach which had an accuracy of 78%. Incorporating SDOH and predicted ACG scores also significantly improved the prediction for both appointments and non–visit care interactions. The R ² values increased by 95.2 and 93.8%, respectively. Furthermore, age, smoking tobacco, family history, gender, usage of injection birth control, and ACG were significant factors for determining appointments. SDOH factors such as tobacco usage, physical exercise, education level, and group activities were strongly correlated with non–visit care interactions. Conclusion The study highlights the importance of SDOH and predicted ACG scores in predicting provider workload in primary care settings. The research study was not human subject research. Received: 20 December 2023 Accepted: 07 May 2024 Article published online: 03 July 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany