| Literature DB >> 35813308 |
Asana Hosseini Dolatabad1, Hannan Amoozad Mahdiraji2, Ali Zamani Babgohari1, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes3, Ahad Ai4.
Abstract
This study presents a multi-layer fuzzy-based decision-making approach to enhance the hospital Circular Supply Chain (CSC) performance by focusing on intensive care units (ICU) via key performance indicators analysis. In this regard, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Institution Fuzzy Delphi (IFD) are employed to extract the relevant and prominent KPIs. After, a hybrid Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) and Fuzzy Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (FDEMATEL) have been applied to illustrate a conceptual framework for the CSC performance management of the healthcare sector in the emerging economy of Iran. As a result, eight critical indicators emanated from the SLR-IFD approach. Furthermore, sixteen relationships amongst the performance indicators were identified via hybrid FCM-FDEMATEL. Inventory availability, information availability, innovation, and technology were selected as the most influential indicators. Besides, changing the information technology category, including information availability and Innovation and technology, had the most impact on the performance of the entire CSC. This study attempts to evaluate hospitals' circular supply chain performance, by designing the circular evaluation framework. Hospital managers can use the results of this research to improve their internal circular supply chain performances in the intensive care units by understanding the different scenarios.Entities:
Keywords: Circular supply chain; Fuzzy DEMATEL; Fuzzy cognitive map; Healthcare key performance indicators; Healthcare performance measurement
Year: 2022 PMID: 35813308 PMCID: PMC9251035 DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02535-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Dev Sustain ISSN: 1387-585X Impact factor: 4.080
Review of KPIs in the healthcare sectorɱɱ
| Iv | IAv | IAC | IC | IU | PS | UD | DA | DC | INAC | INAV | PI | EU | RT | ICR | DF | RP | INCO | ST | PSA | MR | QB | INT | SV | ES | ET | ST | AHS | HR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Pourcq et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||
| Hoeur and Kritchanchai ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Carrus et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| Feibert and Jacobsen ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Fong et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Supeekit et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Rahimi et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Si et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||
| Gu and Itoh ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| Núñez et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||
| El Mokrini et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Kritchanchai et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||||
| Moons and et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hristov and Chirico ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||
| Behrouzi & Ma’aram (2019) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| Amos et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| Jiang et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||||||||||
| J. Lai and Yuen ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||
| Pishnamazzadeh et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Amos et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||
| Neri et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||
| Burlea-Schiopoiu and Ferhati ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||
| J. H. K. Lai et al., ( | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Inventory Visibility (IV); Inventory Availability (IAV); inventory accuracy (IAC); inventory cost (IC); Inventory usage (IU) Patient safety (delays, errors) (PS); Urgent Delivery (UD); Delivery accuracy (DA); Distribution cost (DC); Information Accuracy (INAC); Information Availability (INAV); Product Identification (PI); ease of use (EU); reliable tracking (RT); inventory critically (ICR); delivery frequency (DF); responsibility (RP); information cost (INCO); Standardization (ST); Patient satisfaction (PSA); Mortality Rate (MR) Quality of the building (QB); Innovation and technology (INT); service variety (SV); Employee satisfaction (ES); employee turnover (ET); Staff training (ST); Average hospital stay (AHS); Hospital readmission rate (HR)
Fig. 1Research framework
Notation list for IFD, FCM, and FDEMATEL
| Index | Description | Array or Value |
|---|---|---|
| A | IFS in a finite set X | − |
| Membership function | [0,1] | |
| Non-Membership function | [0,1] | |
| Hesitation degree | – | |
| L | Number of DMs | 16 |
| K | DM kth | |
| The intuitionistic fuzzy number for the ranking of | ||
| Weight of kth DM | [0,1] | |
| N | Number of criteria | |
| p | Number of surveyed experts | |
| Fuzzy number (low, med, up) | ||
| Normalized Fuzzy matrix | ||
| Impact of criteria | ||
| Degree of influence of criteria | ||
| Weight of criteria | – | |
| f | Threshold function | [0,1] |
| Number of criteria | ||
Linguistic terms and membership/non-membership degrees
| Linguistic terms | IFNs |
|---|---|
| Very Important (VI) | (0.90, 0.10) |
| Important (I) | (0.75, 0.20) |
| Medium (M) | (0.50, 0.45) |
| Unimportant (UI) | (0.35, 0.60) |
| very unimportant (VUI) | (0.10, 0.90) |
The triangular Fuzzy values used for linguistic terms (Liou et al., 2008)
| Linguistic terms | Fuzzy Number (l,m,u) |
|---|---|
| Very high influence | (0.75, 1.00, 1.00) |
| High influence | (0.50, 0.75, 1.00) |
| Low influence | (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) |
| Very low influence | (0.00, 0.25, 0.50) |
| No influence | (0.00, 0.00, 0.25) |
Initial analysis of KPIs
| KPI | Frequency | KPI | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory visibility | 38 | Delivery frequency | 12 |
| Inventory availability | 87 | Response time | 78 |
| Inventory accuracy | 26 | Information cost | 50 |
| Inventory cost | 83 | Standardization | 61 |
| Inventory usage (IU) | 52 | Patient satisfaction | 65 |
| Patient safety (delays, errors) | 65 | Mortality rate | 26 |
| Urgent delivery | 17 | Quality of the building | 13 |
| Delivery accuracy | 17 | Innovation and improvement | 52 |
| Distribution cost | 70 | Service variety | 8 |
| Information accuracy | 47 | Employee satisfaction | 57 |
| Inform Action availability | 74 | Employee turnover | 44 |
| Product identification | 13 | Staff training | 26 |
| Ease of use | 26 | Average hospital stay | 65 |
| Accurate and reliable tracking | 52 | Hospital readmission rate | 25 |
| Inventory critically | 31 |
Experts/DMs profile
| Gender (M/F) | Job role | Working Experience (years) |
|---|---|---|
| M | Hospital Manager | 6 |
| M | ICU Doctor | 10 |
| F | ICU Doctor | 4 |
| F | ICU Nurse | 4 |
| F | Hospital Manager | 7 |
| M | ICU Doctor | 9 |
| F | ICU Doctor | 6 |
| M | ICU Nurse | 5 |
| M | Hospital Manager | 4 |
| M | ICU Doctor | 8 |
| F | ICU Doctor | 11 |
| F | ICU Nurse | 8 |
| M | Professor | 15 |
| M | Professor | 13 |
| F | Associate Professor | 15 |
| M | Associate Professor | 14 |
Selected KPIs from the IFD approach
| KPI | IFDN | Decision | Code | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory availability | 4.808 | ✓ | C1 | Accessible services and products (Kumar & Rahman, |
| Inventory cost | 3.549 | |||
| Inventory usage (IU) | 3.042 | |||
| Patient safety | 6.557 | ✓ | C2 | Provide trusty services and keep patients from errors, infections, and delays (Núñez et al., |
| Distribution cost | 2.546 | |||
| Information availability | 5.193 | ✓ | C3 | The capacity of information technology to demonstrate accurate data in the whole supply chain (Kritchanchai et al., |
| Accurate and reliable tracking | 3.485 | |||
| Response time | 6.369 | ✓ | C4 | Deliver the on-time services and products (Amos et al., |
| Information cost | 3.27 | |||
| Standardization | 3.55 | |||
| Patient satisfaction | 6.206 | ✓ | C5 | Patients’ expectations of all services, products, transportation, and inventory (Gu & Itoh, |
| Innovation and improvement | 6.206 | ✓ | C6 | Supply chain buildings, facilities, services, and products (Kritchanchai et al., |
| Employee satisfaction | 4.239 | ✓ | C7 | Satisfaction of staff (Gu & Itoh, |
| Average hospital stay | 5.565 | ✓ | C8 | The average time which a patient stays in the hospital (Núñez et al., |
Interactive matrix for FCM
| Criteria | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.55 | 0.65 |
| C2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 |
| C3 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.65 | 0 |
| C4 | 0 | 0.9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C6 | 0.65 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.85 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C7 | 0 | 0.65 | 0 | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| C8 | 0 | 0.55 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Fig. 2Cause-effect diagram of KPIs by FCM
Total relations matrix
| C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.003 | 0.031 | 0.015 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 0.027 | 0.075 | 0.165 |
| C2 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.006 | − 0.073 | 0.153 |
| C3 | 0.003 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.031 | 0.003 | 0.023 | 0.023 | 0.003 | 0.055 | 0.145 |
| C4 | 0.003 | 0.030 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.016 | 0.008 | 0.008 | 0.003 | − 0.062 | 0.207 |
| C5 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.007 | 0.002 | − 0.040 | 0.099 |
| C6 | 0.027 | 0.028 | 0.027 | 0.035 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.065 | 0.218 |
| C7 | 0.003 | 0.019 | 0.003 | 0.027 | 0.005 | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.003 | − 0.020 | 0.168 |
| C8 | 0.003 | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.015 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.099 |
Fig. 3Causal Diagram of the Main KPIs
Fig. 4Final model from FCM-FDEMATEL
Input, output, and centrality degrees of KPIs
| KPI | Indegree | Outdegree | Centrality | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventory availability | 0.65 | 3.4 | 4.05 | 0.190 |
| Patient safety | 2.7 | 0 | 2.7 | 0.127 |
| Information availability | 0.7 | 2.45 | 3.15 | 0.148 |
| responsibility | 2.55 | 1 | 3.55 | 0.167 |
| Patient satisfaction | 1.70 | 0 | 1.70 | 0.080 |
| Innovation and technology | 0.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 0.164 |
| Employee satisfaction | 1.2 | 0 | 1.20 | 0.056 |
| Average hospital stay | 0.65 | 0.8 | 1.45 | 0.068 |
Fig. 5Different Scenarios based on KPIs changes, A) increasing the information technology category, B) increasing the operating efficiency category