| Literature DB >> 34366709 |
Klaus-Dieter Rest1, Patrick Hirsch1.
Abstract
Home health care (HHC) services are of vital importance for the health care system of many countries. Further increases in their demand must be expected and with it grows the need to sustain these services in times of disasters. Existing risk assessment tools and guides support HHC service providers to secure their services. However, they do not provide insights on interdependencies of complex systems like HHC. Causal-Loop-Diagrams (CLDs) are generated to visualize the impacts of epidemics, blackouts, heatwaves, and floods on the HHC system. CLDs help to understand the system design as well as cascading effects. Additionally, they simplify the process of identifying points of action in order to mitigate the impacts of disasters. In a case study, the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on HHC in Austria in spring 2020 are shown. A decision support system (DSS) to support the daily scheduling of HHC nurses is presented and applied to numerically analyze the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, using real-world data from a HHC service provider in Vienna. The DSS is based on a Tabu Search metaheuristic that specifically aims to deal with the peculiarities of urban regions. Various transport modes are considered, including time-dependent public transport.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 case study; Causal-Loop-Diagrams; Decision support system; Disaster management; Home health care
Year: 2021 PMID: 34366709 PMCID: PMC8326643 DOI: 10.1007/s10100-021-00770-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cent Eur J Oper Res ISSN: 1435-246X Impact factor: 2.345
Fig. 1Risk assessment process according to Baker (2005)
Fig. 2CLD of the disaster impacts of epidemics on HHC
Fig. 3CLD of the disaster impacts of blackouts on HHC
Fig. 4CLD of the disaster impacts of heatwaves on HHC
Fig. 5CLD of the disaster impacts of floods on HHC
Fig. 6Structure of the DSS
Data characteristics of the real-world instances
| Jobs | Nurses | Shifts | Pub. transp. | Cars | Avg. walking | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (#) | (#) | (#) | (#) | (#) | (min) | |
| 139 | 28 | 34 | 21 | 7 | 32 | |
| 140 | 20 | 26 | 20 | 0 | 20 | |
| 138 | 18 | 27 | 18 | 0 | 19 | |
| 123 | 20 | 24 | 15 | 5 | 26 | |
| 134 | 18 | 24 | 15 | 3 | 33 | |
| 109 | 18 | 22 | 7 | 11 | 60 | |
| 133 | 24 | 33 | 20 | 4 | 34 | |
| 136 | 27 | 35 | 23 | 4 | 22 | |
| 135 | 21 | 29 | 18 | 3 | 22 | |
| 129 | 21 | 25 | 14 | 7 | 26 | |
| 154 | 26 | 33 | 20 | 6 | 47 | |
| 163 | 21 | 29 | 17 | 4 | 48 | |
| 121 | 17 | 21 | 16 | 1 | 33 | |
| 140 | 25 | 32 | 18 | 7 | 32 | |
| 122 | 26 | 31 | 26 | 0 | 22 | |
| 134 | 20 | 25 | 17 | 3 | 34 |
Real-world scheduling results for each instance before and during COVID-19
| Pre corona | Corona | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Travel | Overtime | Objective | Travel | Overtime | Objective | Increase | |
| (min) | (min) | (min) | (min) | (min) | (min) | (%) | |
| 1730 | 231 | 1961 | 1957 | 294 | 2251 | 14.8 | |
| 1937 | 164 | 2101 | 1989 | 299 | 2288 | 8.9 | |
| 1838 | 1320 | 3158 | 1887 | 1321 | 3208 | 1.6 | |
| 1231 | 701 | 1932 | 1325 | 808 | 2133 | 10.4 | |
| 1400 | 222 | 1622 | 1438 | 282 | 1720 | 6.0 | |
| 1276 | 323 | 1599 | 1299 | 328 | 1627 | 1.8 | |
| 2033 | 564 | 2597 | 2423 | 643 | 3066 | 18.1 | |
| 1344 | 2751 | 4095 | 1383 | 2772 | 4155 | 1.5 | |
| 1292 | 3632 | 4924 | 1340 | 3684 | 5024 | 2.0 | |
| 1340 | 1291 | 2631 | 1461 | 1333 | 2794 | 6.2 | |
| 1851 | 880 | 2731 | 1882 | 932 | 2814 | 3.0 | |
| 1747 | 2883 | 4630 | 1817 | 2960 | 4777 | 3.2 | |
| 1159 | 1326 | 2485 | 1227 | 1392 | 2619 | 5.4 | |
| 1854 | 429 | 2283 | 1886 | 442 | 2328 | 2.0 | |
| 1739 | 230 | 1969 | 1839 | 369 | 2208 | 12.1 | |
| 1360 | 364 | 1724 | 1429 | 438 | 1867 | 8.3 | |
| Mean | 1571 | 1082 | 2653 | 1661 | 1144 | 2805 | 6.6 |
Impacts of transport modes and service times on overtime and tardiness (in min)
| Prolonged service time | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + 0% | + 10% | + 20% | + 30% | + 40% | + 50% | |
| Avg. overtime | 53.4 | 77.4 | 101.0 | 131.1 | 157.2 | 189.1 |
| Avg. tardiness | 5.3 | 7.7 | 11.6 | 17.3 | 23.2 | 31.3 |
| Avg. overtime | 32.8 | 54.1 | 77.6 | 107.7 | 134.4 | 165.4 |
| Avg. tardiness | 2.3 | 5.3 | 8.6 | 13.6 | 19.0 | 26.9 |
| Avg. overtime | 39.7 | 62.3 | 85.7 | 115.8 | 143.2 | 175.0 |
| Avg. tardiness | 3.1 | 6.6 | 9.7 | 14.3 | 20.4 | 28.4 |
| Avg. overtime | 55.3 | 79.3 | 103.4 | 132.7 | 159.5 | 191.3 |
| Avg. tardiness | 5.5 | 7.9 | 12.1 | 17.7 | 23.5 | 31.6 |