| Literature DB >> 33868622 |
Atefeh Amindoust1, Milad Asadpour1,2, Samineh Shirmohammadi3.
Abstract
Nowadays and due to the pandemic of COVID-19, nurses are working under the highest pressure benevolently all over the world. This urgent situation can cause more fatigue for nurses who are responsible for taking care of COVID-19 patients 24 hours a day. Therefore, nurse scheduling should be modified with respect to this new situation. The purpose of the present research is to propose a new mathematical model for Nurse Scheduling Problem (NSP) considering the fatigue factor. To solve the proposed model, a hybrid Genetic Algorithm (GA) has been developed to provide a nurse schedule for all three shifts of a day. To validate the proposed approach, a randomly generated problem has been solved. In addition, to show the applicability of the proposed approach in real situations, the model has been solved for a real case study, a department in one of the hospitals in Esfahan, Iran, where COVID-19 patients are hospitalized. Consequently, a nurse schedule for May has been provided applying the proposed model, and the results approve its superiority in comparison with the manual schedule that is currently used in the department. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study in which the proposed model takes the fatigue of nurses into account and provides a schedule based on it.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33868622 PMCID: PMC8034424 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5563651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Steps of the GA algorithm.
Input parameters of test problem.
| Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
|
| Uniform (1, 10) |
|
| 1 |
| Β | 1 |
|
| 20 |
Schedule for the test problem.
| Day (i) |
|
| m | D | F1 (cost) | F2 (fatigue) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 1 | 2,156 | 0.0386 |
| 2 | 0 0 1 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 1 2 | 2,798 | 0.0369 |
| 3 | 0 1 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 1 0 | 2 2 1 | 2,604 | 0.0358 |
| 4 | 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 2 0 0 | 2 1 1 | 2,309 | 0.0258 |
| 5 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 1 1 | 2,255 | 0.0344 |
| 6 | 0 0 1 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 2 1 2 | 2,885 | 0.0361 |
| 7 | 0 1 0 | 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 | 2 2 1 | 2,515 | 0.029 |
Scheduling of May provided by hybrid GA and manually.
| Day (i) | Manually (hospital) | Hybrid GA | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| m | D | F1 (cost) | F2 (fatigue) |
|
| m | D | F1 (cost) | F2 (fatigue) | |
| 1 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 6 3 3 | 71,481 | 0.0591 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 6 3 3 | 71,481 | 0.0591 |
| 2 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 73,123 | 0.0574 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 73,123 | 0.0574 |
| 3 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 76,729 | 0.0563 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 76,729 | 0.0563 |
| 4 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 6 3 3 | 74,992 | 0.0581 | 0 1 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 0 2 | 5 4 3 | 75,834 | 0.0463 |
| 5 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 77,440 | 0.0549 | 1 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 1 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 77,440 | 0.0549 |
| 6 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 78,070 | 0.0535 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 0 2 | 5 3 3 | 73,810 | 0.0566 |
| 7 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 1 | 6 3 3 | 81,770 | 0.0532 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 0 2 | 5 3 2 | 69,410 | 0.0495 |
| 8 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 2 | 6 3 3 | 89,200 | 0.0498 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 5 3 2 | 71,618 | 0.0448 |
| 9 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 79,250 | 0.0541 | 1 0 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 79,250 | 0.0541 |
| 10 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 83,880 | 0.0526 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 2 2 2 | 5 3 2 | 72,431 | 0.0507 |
| 11 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 2 | 6 3 3 | 89,200 | 0.0498 | 0 1 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 5 4 3 | 91,012 | 0.0455 |
| 12 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 3 | 92,310 | 0.0479 | 1 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 3 | 92,310 | 0.0479 |
| 13 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 78,070 | 0.0535 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 78,070 | 0.0535 |
| 14 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 3 | 92,310 | 0.0479 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 3 | 92,310 | 0.0479 |
| 15 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 6 3 3 | 74,235 | 0.0588 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 0 | 6 3 3 | 74,235 | 0.0588 |
| 16 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 1 | 6 3 3 | 77,440 | 0.0549 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 1 1 | 5 3 3 | 74,142 | 0.0571 |
| 17 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 83,880 | 0.0526 | 1 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 3 | 83,880 | 0.0526 |
| 18 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 2 | 68,300 | 0.0598 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 2 | 68,300 | 0.0598 |
| 19 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 6 3 2 | 70,173 | 0.0576 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 6 3 2 | 70,173 | 0.0576 |
| 20 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 2 | 72,345 | 0.0561 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 2 | 72,345 | 0.0561 |
| 21 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 0 2 | 6 3 1 | 60,900 | 0.0661 | 0 0 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 5 3 2 | 63,476 | 0.0609 |
| 22 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 2 | 6 3 1 | 62,200 | 0.0649 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 0 | 5 3 2 | 60,150 | 0.0637 |
| 23 | 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 0 | 6 3 1 | 59,145 | 0.0674 | 0 1 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 1 | 5 4 3 | 63,182 | 0.0528 |
| 24 | 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 | 1 1 1 | 6 2 1 | 51,165 | 0.0801 | 0 0 0 | 1 2 1 | 2 2 2 | 4 2 2 | 52,750 | 0.0746 |
| 25 | 0 1 0 | 1 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 5 3 1 | 54,100 | 0.0681 | 1 1 0 | 0 0 1 | 2 2 2 | 5 3 1 | 54,100 | 0.0681 |
| 26 | 0 0 1 | 0 1 0 | 2 2 2 | 5 2 2 | 56,108 | 0.0768 | 0 0 1 | 0 1 0 | 2 2 2 | 5 2 2 | 56,108 | 0.0768 |
| 27 | 1 1 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 6 3 2 | 72,345 | 0.0561 | 0 1 1 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 1 | 5 3 3 | 71,230 | 0.0574 |
| 28 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 0 | 2 2 2 | 4 2 2 | 52,215 | 0.0795 | 1 0 0 | 0 1 1 | 2 2 2 | 6 2 2 | 58,900 | 0.0646 |
| 29 | 0 0 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 2 2 | 4 2 3 | 54,000 | 0.0835 | 0 1 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 6 3 3 | 71,700 | 0.0513 |
| 30 | 1 1 0 | 0 0 2 | 2 2 2 | 5 3 1 | 54,100 | 0.0681 | 0 0 0 | 1 1 0 | 2 1 2 | 5 2 3 | 55,700 | 0.0662 |
| 31 | 0 0 1 | 1 1 0 | 0 0 0 | 4 2 2 | 51,985 | 0.0919 | 1 0 0 | 0 0 0 | 2 1 2 | 6 2 3 | 69,150 | 0.0598 |
Figure 2Comparison of the cost function.
Figure 3Cumulative values of the cost function.
Figure 4Comparison of fatigue function.
Figure 5Cumulative values of fatigue function.
Figure 6Required time for providing a schedule.