���Applying Queueing Theory and Simulation to the Modeling of Emergency Departments��
Summer (Xia) Hu
Sean Barnes
Bruce Golden
University of Maryland, College Park
1
Jul. 31 2015
Emergency Department (ED) Crowding�
2
Patients
Providers
Negative Effects
Queueing Theory (QT) �
3
Challenges In ED Queueing Modeling
4
Descriptive Analysis By Year
5
Descriptive Analysis By Publication Outlets
6
Performance Measures�
7
Example: Governmental policy evaluation
ED Performance Measures | Number of Articles | |
Time | Expected Wait Time | 9 |
Average Length of Stay | 3 | |
Length of Stay | 4 | |
Expected Boarding Time | 2 | |
Fraction of Time On Diversion | 1 | |
Queue | Average Queue Length | 3 |
LWBS Rate | 4 | |
Probability | Wait Probability | 6 |
Area Overflow Probability | 3 | |
Blocking Probability to Inpatient Unit | 1 | |
Resource | Resource Utilization | 5 |
Marginal Resource (bed) | 1 | |
Problem-Oriented Perspective
8
Recall ED Procedure:
Two Perspectives:
Demand-Oriented Problems
9
10
11
�
Example:
[G. Allon, S. Deo, et al.]: The capacity of the inpatient unit is negatively correlated with the fraction of time that the ED diverts ambulances. Minimum number of beds is positively correlated with the fraction of time spent on active diversion.
12
13
Example: [J.K. Cochran, J. R. Broyles, 2010] explored the relationship between LWBS and ED utilization by approximating reneging using queueing with balking. They predicted future ED capacity based on patient safety (rather than congestion measures).
14
Such queue-based relationship is superior to the typical ad hoc regression relationships commonly found
Supply-Oriented Problems: Resource�
15
Studies focused on the estimation of the necessary amount of ED resources can be classified into two types:
- Use QT to estimate the steady state resource requirement. Then adjust resource levels to meet the daily fluctuations in demand in specific ED
- Use autoregressive integrated moving average models, Monte Carlo simulation and Markov Decision Processes to determine resource levels as a function of time
Recall Kendall’s Notation
16
Typical Values:
Queueing system A/B/m/K/n/D | |
A | Probability distribution of the inter-arrival times |
B | Probability distribution of the service times |
m | Number of servers |
K | Capacity of the system including patients in service (K ≥ m) |
n | Size of the source population |
D | Queueing discipline |
Modeling-Oriented Perspective
17
e.g., (N. Yankovic, L.V. Green, 2011) modified M/M/c queue
e.g., (A.M. de Bruin et al., 2007)
Queueing Model | # of Articles | |
Infinite Capacity G(t)/G/c(t) | M/M/c | 9 |
M/M/c//n (infinite source) | 1 | |
M/M/1 | 1 | |
M/G/1 | 1 | |
M/M/ ∞ | 2 | |
M/G/c | 3 | |
D/G/1 | 1 | |
Mt/G/ct | 1 | |
G/GI/c/c | 1 | |
GI/G/ct | 1 | |
Finite Capacity G/G/c/k | M/M/c/k | 1 |
M/M/1/k | 2 | |
M/M/c/c | 1 | |
M/G/c/c | 1 | |
M/GI/c/c | 1 | |
Queue With Abandonment | M/M/n + G | 1 |
Mt/M/n + G | 1 | |
M/GI/r/s +GI (Approximate to M/M/r/s + M(n)) | 1
| |
Markov Decision Process | Bivariate | 1 |
2-Stage | 3 | |
Modeling-Oriented Perspective
18
Article | QT | Assumption |
[MM2012]
| Inverted-V-shaped queueing system | A single centralized queue and k heterogeneous wards; each ward contains Ni i.i.d servers (beds). Upon arrival, each patient is routed to one available pool if it has idle servers, or joins a centralized queue of infinite capacity if all the servers are busy |
[LPL2014]
| M/GI/ c1/∞ with priority, and G/GI/ c2/ c2
| ED queue: five priority patients; high priority patients receive immediate service; Patient either discharge, or transfer to IUs after ED, depending on the availability of IU beds; IU queue: no priorities or buffer. Resource is bed capacity in the ED and IU. Each resource has a capacity of one |
[BC2011] | Two multi-server M/M/c queue in series | Service rate for ED, IU is unknown and estimated by statistical methods. Resource is bed for both queues |
[ADL] | M/M/(N1 − B) and M/M/N2/K queue (approximated) | Two priority patients as two queues; independent poison arrival rates to the ED and admission rates to the IU; each station has multiple servers (beds); hospital diverted patients if there were more than K boarded patients in the ED |
ED QT & Simulation
- Great flexibility in testing scenarios, hypotheses, policies, and re-engineering ideas
19
QT & Simulation Double Validation In the Same Paper
20
Papers | Simulation Purpose | QT/ Simulation Results Comparison |
[YG2011] | Test reliability/assumption robustness of QT model; examine the impact of ALOS | QT model’s staffing estimates are reliable under various distribution hypothesis, with occasional underestimation of delays when ALOS is short |
[CR2009] | Check performance measures | Performance measures are consistent |
[LPL2014] | Validate the impact of variables on necessary ED capacity | Achieved very close results
|
[SAG2013] | QT model to validate simulation model | The wait times predicted by the QT model are lower than the simulation model. |
[YM2014] | Validate QT models in large and small system to pinpoint unfitness; Compare staffing given by two QT models | In large system, the QT and simulation performance fit closely in the QED regime, but not necessarily for the efficiency driven system. |
[XC2014] | Verify the insights generated by QT model on ED admission control | Simulation verified that the proactive policies based on QT are robust under the variation of parameters |
[AIM] | Simulation model as an acute measure of performance | |
QT & Simulation Double Validation In the Same Paper
21
Results:
Compared with the Mt/Mt/ ∞ model which fits well only when ED patient number is small and Mt/Mi/ ∞ model which is even less accurate, the state dependent model Mi/Mi/ ∞ has an overall good fit with simulation and real system performance
Example:[AIM]
Simulation Purpose:
Test how the number of patients in ED depends on time and state of the system for different QT models
QT in Combination with Simulation
22
Papers | Purpose | How QT is combined with simulation |
[ZC2009] | Utilization Improvement |
|
[LW2012] | Congestion Alleviation |
|
[HF2009] | AD routing Policy |
|
Conclusion
23
Future Direction
24
Thank you!
Summer (Xia) Hu
University of Maryland, College Park
xhu64@umd.edu
25