| Literature DB >> 35222623 |
Qiqian Li1, Yali Liu2, Esra Sipahi Döngül3, Yufen Yang4, Xiaoyuan Ruan5, Wegayehu Enbeyle6.
Abstract
This study presents an optimization approach for scheduling the operation room for emergency surgeries, considering the priority of surgeries. This optimization model aims to minimize the costs associated with elective and emergency surgeries and maximize the number of scheduled surgeries. In this study, surgeon assistants to perform each surgery are considered in order to achieve the goals. Since the time of each surgery varies according to the conditions of the patient, this parameter is considered as an uncertain one, and a robust optimization method is applied to deal with uncertainty. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, a case study in one of the East Asian hospitals is presented and analyzed using GAMS software. Moreover, hybrid simulation and gray wolf optimization algorithm (GWO) have been implemented to solve the optimization model in different scenarios. The results show that increasing the risk parameters in the robust optimization model will increase the system costs. Moreover, in case of uncertainty, the solutions obtained from the GWO simulation method are on average 73.75% better than the solutions obtained from the GWO algorithm.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35222623 PMCID: PMC8872665 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2290644
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Optimal solution of operation room scheduling.
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | H2 | I14 | I3 | I20 | I8 | I13 | I11 | |
| R2 | H3 | I7 | I2 | I15 | I21 | I6 | I23 | I5 |
| R3 | H1 | I9 | I25 | I19 | I10 | I22 | I24 | I1 |
| R4 | H4 | I16 | I18 | I4 | I12 | I17 |
Optimal solution of surgical assistant scheduling.
| T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | T5 | T6 | T7 | T8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | H3 | I25 | I11 | |||||
| A2 | I14 | I18 | ||||||
| A3 | I10 | |||||||
| A4 | I9 | I6 | I24 | I17 | ||||
| A5 | I7 | I2 | I12 | I5 | ||||
| A6 | H4 | I16 | I21 | I22 | ||||
| A7 | H1 | I19 | I4 | I23 | ||||
| A8 | H2 | I3 | I15 | I20 | I8 | I13 | I1 |
Figure 1Results of the first objective function for I = 10 and for H = 1 and H = 2 under uncertainty.
Figure 2Results of the first objective function for H = 3 and for I = 15 and I = 24 under uncertainty.
Results of different scenarios of different combinations of innovative rules in GWO algorithm design.
| Test problem | Number of surgeries | Number of surgeons | Number of operating rooms | Average objective value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario 1 | Scenario 2 | Scenario 3 | Scenario 4 | Scenario 5 | Scenario 6 | Scenario 7 | ||||
| 1 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 4.32 | 4.11 | 2.05 | 0.68 | 0.22 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 2 | 23 | 11 | 7 | 53.87 | 57.83 | 43.11 | 49.56 | 0.22 | 3.31 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 27 | 12 | 7 | 141.16 | 29.11 | 29.16 | 34.53 | 19.87 | 23.47 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 22 | 10 | 7 | 7.19 | 0.92 | 3.87 | 0.00 | 0.49 | 2.37 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 0.00 | 0.26 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 6 | 27 | 9 | 7 | 47.16 | 3.48 | 5.68 | 2.97 | 2.47 | 3.83 | 0.00 |
| 7 | 25 | 9 | 7 | 94.18 | 78.15 | 84.19 | 104.35 | 23.19 | 20.04 | 0.00 |
| 8 | 18 | 11 | 7 | 2.41 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | 18 | 9 | 7 | 57.19 | 20.19 | 74.83 | 34.86 | 0.00 | 0.25 | 0.00 |
| 10 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 84.19 | 32.87 | 37.89 | 39.96 | 34.18 | 32.73 | 27.92 |
| 11 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 16.79 | 1.98 | 7.88 | 2.64 | 2.54 | 1.44 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 4.53 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 13 | 20 | 16 | 8 | 5.79 | 16.23 | 6.75 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 14 | 22 | 12 | 7 | 3.72 | 0.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 15 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 26.93 | 20.19 | 37.14 | 18.92 | 3.19 | 2.19 | 0.00 |
| Average | 36.63 | 17.70 | 22.17 | 19.29 | 5.76 | 5.98 | 1.86 | |||
Results of the proposed hybrid algorithm in the sample of different problems.
| Test problem | Number of surgeries | Number of surgeons | Number of operating rooms | Average objective value | CPU time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 0.18 | 2 |
| 2 | 23 | 11 | 7 | 3.85 | 11 |
| 3 | 27 | 12 | 7 | 25.36 | 37 |
| 4 | 22 | 10 | 7 | 0.00 | 20 |
| 5 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 6 | 27 | 9 | 7 | 5.08 | 27 |
| 7 | 25 | 9 | 7 | 5.81 | 16 |
| 8 | 18 | 11 | 7 | 2.63 | 5 |
| 9 | 18 | 9 | 7 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 10 | 22 | 11 | 7 | 41.04 | 26 |
| 11 | 21 | 8 | 7 | 0.95 | 18 |
| 12 | 17 | 9 | 7 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 13 | 20 | 16 | 8 | 0.00 | 1 |
| 14 | 22 | 12 | 7 | 0.09 | 31 |
| 15 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 0.00 | 17 |
Figure 3Gantt chart of Xiang et al.'s [5] results in solving a sample problem.
Figure 4Gantt chart of the results of the GWO algorithm proposed in this study in solving the sample problem.
Evaluation of GWO simulation response on different scenarios.
| Number of solutions | Number of surgeries | Worst scenario | Average value scenario | Best scenario | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overtime | Idle time | Objective value | Overtime | Idle time | Objective value | Overtime | Idle time | Objective value | ||
| 1 | 14 | 0 | 4 | 9.12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 26.46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 223 | 19 | 5 | 11.28 | 2 | 2 | 9.38 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 21 | 19 | 0 | 7.29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | 25 | 11 | 2 | 42.59 | 3 | 0 | 14.75 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 23 | 9 | 0 | 37.25 | 3 | 5 | 16.86 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 5.39 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 21 | 42 | 0 | 18.93 | 12 | 0 | 47.39 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 24 | 9 | 5 | 26.43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 5.69 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Comparison of the proposed hybrid method (GWO simulation) and pure GWO algorithm.
| Test problem | Number of surgeries | Number of surgeons | Number of operating rooms | Average GWO objective function in scenarios | Mean GWO simulation objective function in scenarios | Percentage of improvement in average responses (VSS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | 6 | 5 | 21.452 | 5.492 | 73.3 |
| 2 | 20 | 9 | 5 | 6.957 | 0 | 100 |
| 3 | 25 | 10 | 5 | 12.79 | 3.482 | 74.28 |
| 4 | 20 | 8 | 5 | 3.752 | 0 | 100 |
| 5 | 15 | 10 | 5 | 59.73 | 4.483 | 95.79 |
| 6 | 25 | 7 | 5 | 9.672 | 1.572 | 78.27 |
| 7 | 24 | 7 | 5 | 0.728 | 0.947 | 0 |
| 8 | 18 | 9 | 5 | 2.783 | 0 | 100 |
| 9 | 16 | 7 | 5 | 1.466 | 0.792 | 46.37 |
| 10 | 20 | 9 | 4 | 2.886 | 0.591 | 78.42 |
| 11 | 19 | 6 | 4 | 8.394 | 1.924 | 76.92 |
| 12 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 1.067 | 0.219 | 97.68 |
| Average improvement (percentage) | 73.75 | |||||
Figure 5Comparison of the GWO with the GWO simulation.