| Literature DB >> 34996444 |
Jurandir Barreto Galdino Junior1, Hélio Roberto Hékis2, José Alfredo Ferreira Costa3, Íon Garcia Mascarenhas de Andrade4, Eric Lucas Dos Santos Cabral5, Wilkson Ricardo Silva Castro5, Davidson Rogério de Medeiros Florentino5, Tiago de Oliveira Barreto5, João Florêncio da Costa Júnior5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Brazil, many public hospitals face constant problems related to high demand vis-à-vis an overall scarcity of resources, which hinders the operations of different sectors such as the surgical centre, as it is considered one of the most relevant pillars for the proper hospital functioning, due to its complexity, criticality as well as economic and social importance. Proper asset management based on well-founded decisions is, therefore, a sine-qua-non condition for addressing such demands. However, subjectivity and other difficulties present in decisions make the management of hospital resources a constant challenge.Entities:
Keywords: Fuzzy logic; QFD; Quality; SERVQUAL; Surgical centre
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34996444 PMCID: PMC8739655 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-022-01746-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Fig. 1House of quality.
Source: Adapted from Abdelsamad, Rushd and Tawfik [11]
Quality service analysis criteria.
Source: Adapted from Batista [14]
| Relationship between perception (P) and expectation(E) | Service quality level |
|---|---|
| E > P | Service with quality below expectation |
| E < P | Service with quality above expectations |
| E = P | Service with neutral quality or within expected levels |
Scales employed in SERVQUAL.
Source: Adapted from Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry [29]
| SCALE 1 | SCALE 2 | SCALE 3 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expectation | Perception | Importance | |||
| Linguistic variable | Assigned score | Linguistic variable | Assigned score | Linguistic variable | Assigned score |
| Very low | 1 | Too bad | 1 | Very low | 1 |
| Low | 2 | Bad | 2 | Low | 2 |
| Average | 3 | Average | 3 | Average | 3 |
| High | 4 | Good | 4 | High | 4 |
| Very high | 5 | Very good | 5 | Very high | 5 |
Fig. 2Schematic summary of the first phase of the integration of the studied methodologies
Fig. 3Schematic summary of the second phase of the studied methodologies integration
SERVQUAL questionnaire scales and their respective fuzzy numbers.
Source: Adapted from Lima Junior, Osiro e Carpinetti [34]
| Scale 1 | Scale 2 | Scale 3 | Fuzzy number | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expectation | Perception | Importance | |||
| Linguistic variable | Linguistic variable | Linguistic variable | a | m | b |
| Very low | Too bad | Very low | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 |
| Low | Bad | Low | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 |
| Average | Average | Average | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |
| High | Good | High | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1 |
| Very high | Very good | Very high | 0.75 | 1 | 1 |
Fig. 4Graphical representation of fuzzy numbers corresponding to scales 1 and 3.
Source: Adapted from Lima Junior, Osiro e Carpinetti [34]
Fig. 5Graphical representation of fuzzy numbers corresponding to scale 2.
Source: Adapted from Lima Junior, Osiro e Carpinetti [34]
Relationship levels, their respective symbols, and fuzzy numbers.
Source: Adapted from Kargari [44]
| Relationship level | Linguistic variable symbol | Fuzzy numbers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | m | b | ||
| Very low | VL | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.25 |
| Low | L | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.5 |
| Average | A | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 |
| Strong | S | 0.5 | 0.75 | 1.0 |
| Very strong | VS | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Non-existent | – | – | – | – |
Fig. 6Graphical representation of the fuzzy numbers corresponding to Table 2.
Source: Adaptaded from Kargari [44]
Quality gaps representation through fuzzy and crisp numbers
| Dimensions | ITENS | FUZZY numbers | Crisp numbers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | m | b | |||
| Tangibility | Item 1 | − 0.65 | − 0.28 | 0.20 | − 0.26 |
| Item 2 | − 0.55 | − 0.20 | 0.28 | − 0.18 | |
| Item 3 | − 0.47 | − 0.13 | 0.30 | − 0.12 | |
| Item 4 | − 0.61 | − 0.24 | 0.23 | − 0.23 | |
| Item 5 | − 0.53 | − 0.19 | 0.26 | − 0.17 | |
| Reliability | Item 6 | − 0.51 | − 0.17 | 0.27 | − 0.15 |
| Item 7 | − 0.59 | − 0.23 | 0.24 | − 0.21 | |
| Item 8 | − 0.46 | − 0.15 | 0.27 | − 0.13 | |
| Item 9 | − 0.55 | − 0.20 | 0.25 | − 0.19 | |
| Item 10 | − 0.66 | − 0.32 | 0.17 | − 0.29 | |
| Responsiveness | Item 11 | − 0.65 | − 0.28 | 0.20 | − 0.26 |
| Item 12 | − 0.53 | − 0.23 | 0.20 | − 0.21 | |
| Item 13 | − 0.55 | − 0.24 | 0.20 | − 0.22 | |
| Security | Item 14 | − 0.76 | − 0.47 | 0.01 | − 0.44 |
| Item 15 | − 0.77 | − 0.49 | − 0.01 | − 0.45 | |
| Item 16 | − 0.74 | − 0.45 | 0.03 | − 0.42 | |
| Item 17 | − 0.52 | − 0.21 | 0.24 | − 0.18 | |
| Item 18 | − 0.57 | − 0.24 | 0.21 | − 0.22 | |
| Item 19 | − 0.44 | − 0.12 | 0.29 | − 0.10 | |
| Empathy | Item 20 | − 0.53 | − 0.20 | 0.24 | − 0.18 |
| Item 21 | − 0.60 | − 0.28 | 0.18 | − 0.26 | |
| Item 22 | − 0.25 | − 0.18 | 0.27 | − 0.15 | |
Fig. 7Graphical representation of the quality gaps
Definition of “customer's voice”
| Items | GAP | Ranking | Dimension | Item description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item 15 | − 0.45 | 1 | Security | Training for accident situations (rapid evacuation, fire, explosion, etc.) |
| Item 14 | − 0.44 | 2 | Security | Contingency plan for disaster situations (rapid evacuation, fire, explosion, etc.) |
| Item 16 | − 0.42 | 3 | Security | The physical structure is adequate for the safety measures in place (Correct signaling, operation of generators, presence of anti-panic door, operation of fire-fighting equipment) |
| Item 10 | − 0.29 | 4 | Reliability | Surgical planning and schedule |
| Item 1 | − 0.26 | 5 | Tangibility | General physical structure (hydraulic, electrical, facilities, furniture, etc.) |
| Item 11 | − 0.26 | 6 | Responsiveness | Operating rooms demand-response capacity |
| Item 21 | − 0.26 | 7 | Empathy | Employees fully understand the need to assist other team members |
| Item 4 | − 0.23 | 8 | Tangibility | Technical team (engineering, administration, maintenance, and hygiene) |
Project requirements
| Project requirements (PR) | Description |
|---|---|
| PR1 | Creation of an obligatory training agenda and/or training against casualties (quick evacuation, fire, explosion, etc.) |
| PR2 | Creation of a contingency plan against casualties (quick evacuation, fire, explosion, lack of water or energy, etc.) |
| PR3 | Adoption of technical safety standards determined by the fire department |
| PR4 | Integrated management system (which allows integration between stock data, human resources and the list of registered surgeries) |
| PR5 | Adoption of technical standards relating to planning, programming, elaboration and evaluation of physical projects in health care establishments |
| PR6 | Monitoring of surgery rooms operating dynamics |
| PR7 | Shared management (allowing all members of the team to participate in decisions) |
| PR8 | Training the technical team (engineering, administration, maintenance and hygienization) |
Fuzzy relationship matrix
| Level of importance | PR 1 | PR 2 | PR 3 | PR 4 | PR 5 | PR 6 | PR 7 | PR 8 | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN 1 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| CN 2 | 0.70 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| CN 3 | 0.69 | 0.93 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| CN 4 | 0.66 | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.0 |
| CN 5 | 0.67 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.5 |
| CN 6 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| CN 7 | 0.68 | 0.93 | 0.99 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.0 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| CN 8 | 0.66 | 0.91 | 0.98 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.75 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.25 | 0.50 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 1.0 |
| Relative importance (Fuzzy) | 1.7 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 4.2 | 5.6 | 1.7 | 3.2 | 3.9 | 2.0 | 4.4 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 3.9 | 4.9 | 2.7 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 6.5 | 7.4 | |||
| Relative importance (Crisp) | 3.1 | 4.1 | 4.1 | 3.1 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 5.2 | 6.1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Relative importance (%) | 9.29 | 12.11 | 12.12 | 9.17 | 12.62 | 11.17 | 15.32 | 18.20 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Ranking | 7 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
Fig. 8Representation of the relative importance of the design requirements using the Pareto diagram