Advertisement

Queuing network models for panel sizing in oncology

  • Peter T. Vanberkel
  • Nelly Litvak
  • Martin L. Puterman
  • Scott Tyldesley
Article
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Motivated by practices and issues at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA), we develop queuing network models to determine the appropriate number of patients to be managed by a single physician. This is often referred to as a physician’s panel size. The key features that distinguish our study of oncology practices from other panel size models are high patient turnover rates, multiple patient and appointment types, and follow-up care. The paper develops stationary and non-stationary queuing network models corresponding to stabilized and developing practices, respectively. These models are used to determine new patient arrival rates that ensure practices operate within certain performance thresholds. Data from the BCCA are used to calibrate and illustrate the implications of these models.

Keywords

Queueing networks Panel sizing Oncology Capacity planning 

Mathematics Subject Classification

60 65 90 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge staff from the CIHR Team in Operations Research for Improved Cancer Care at the BC Cancer Agency for their support of this project and their assistance with data collection and Daniel Ding for his valuable feedback on our manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Balasubramanian, H., Banerjee, R., Denton, B., Naessens, J., Stahl, J.: Improving clinical access and continuity through physician panel redesign. J. Gen. Int. Med. 25(10), 1109–1115 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balasubramanian, H., Denton, B., Lin, M.: Handbook of Healthcare Delivery Systems: Managing Physician Panels in Primary Care, Chap. 10, pp. 1–23. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bitran, G.R., Morabito, R.: Open queueing networks: optimization and performance evaluation models for discrete manufacturing systems. Prod. Oper. Manag. 5(2), 163–193 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boucherie, R.J., Taylor, P.: Transient product from distributions in queueing networks. Discrete Event Dyn. Syst. 3(4), 375–396 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cella, D.F., Tulsky, D.S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S.B., Winicour, P., Brannon, J.: The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol. 11(3), 570–579 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green, L.V., Savin, S.: Reducing delays for medical appointments: a queueing approach. Oper. Res. 56(6), 1526–1538 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, L.V., Savin, S., Murray, M.: Providing timely access to care: what is the right patient panel size? Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 33(4), 211–218 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hall, R.W.: Patient Flow: Reducing Delay in Healthcare Delivery, 1st edn. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kimura, T.: Approximations for multi-server queues: system interpolations. Queueing Syst. 17(3–4), 347–382 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, C., Puterman, M., Saure, A., Taylor, M., Tyldesley, S.: Capacity planning and appointment scheduling for new patient oncology consults. Health Care Manag. Sci. 19, 1–15 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massey, W.A., Whitt, W.: Networks of infinite-server queues with nonstationary Poisson input. Queueing Syst. 13(1), 183–250 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murray, M., Berwick, D.M.: Advanced access: reducing waiting and delays in primary care. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 289(8), 1035–1040 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray, M., Davies, M., Boushon, B.: Panel size: how many patients can one doctor manage? Fam. Pract. Manag. 14(4), 44 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozen, A., Balasubramanian, H.: The impact of case mix on timely access to appointments in a primary care group practice. Health Care Manag. Sci. 16(2), 101–118 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Poznanski, D.: Prostate cancer follow-up practices of genitourinary radiation oncologists at the BC cancer agency Vancouver centre. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakasegawa, H.: An approximation formula \(l_q\approx \alpha \rho ^{\beta }/(1-\rho )\). Ann. Inst. Stat. Math. 29(1), 67–75 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Whitt, W.: Approximations for the GI/G/\(m\) queue. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2(2), 114–161 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu, K., McGinnis, L.: Performance evaluation for general queueing networks in manufacturing systems: characterizing the trade-off between queue time and utilization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 221(2), 328–339 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Eeden, K., Moeke, D., Bekker, R.: Care on demand in nursing homes: a queueing theoretic approach. Health Care Manag. Sci. 19(3), 227–240 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter T. Vanberkel
    • 1
  • Nelly Litvak
    • 2
    • 3
  • Martin L. Puterman
    • 4
  • Scott Tyldesley
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Department of Applied MathematicsUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Sauder School of BusinessUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  5. 5.British Columbia Cancer AgencyVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations