Rok Drnovšek, Marija Milavec Kapun, Simona Šteblaj, Uroš Rajkovič
{"title":"Multicriteria Risk Evaluation Model: Utilizing Fuzzy Logic for Improved Transparency and Quality of Risk Evaluation in Healthcare.","authors":"Rok Drnovšek, Marija Milavec Kapun, Simona Šteblaj, Uroš Rajkovič","doi":"10.2147/RMHP.S490598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Risk management is essential for quality assurance in modern healthcare organizations. Risk matrices are widely used to evaluate risks in healthcare settings; however, this approach has noteworthy weaknesses and limitations. This paper introduces a novel risk evaluation model that utilizes multicriteria decision-making and fuzzy logic, to enhance the transparency and quality of the risk evaluation process in healthcare.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Multicriteria Evaluation Model was developed using the Decision Expert method and expert knowledge integration. Fuzzy logic was integrated within the model, using partial degrees of membership and probabilistic analysis, to address uncertainties inherent to healthcare risk evaluation. The evaluation model was tested with healthcare professionals active in the field of risk management in clinical practice and compared with the risk matrix.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The designed evaluation model utilizes multicriteria decision-making while encompassing the risk matrix framework to boost user understanding and enable meaningful comparison of results. Compared with the risk matrix, the model provided similar or marginally higher risk-level evaluations. The use of degrees of membership enables evaluators to articulate a wide range of plausible risk consequences, which are often overlooked or ambiguously addressed in the traditional risk matrix approach.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>The evaluation model demonstrates increased transparency of the decision-making process and facilitates in-depth analysis of the evaluation results. The utilization of degrees of membership revealed distinct strategies for handling uncertainty among participants, highlighting the weaknesses of using single value evaluation approach for the presented and similar decision problems. The presented approach is not limited to healthcare-related risk evaluation, but has the capacity to improve risk evaluation practices in diverse settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":56009,"journal":{"name":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","volume":"18 ","pages":"637-653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11873022/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Management and Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S490598","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Risk management is essential for quality assurance in modern healthcare organizations. Risk matrices are widely used to evaluate risks in healthcare settings; however, this approach has noteworthy weaknesses and limitations. This paper introduces a novel risk evaluation model that utilizes multicriteria decision-making and fuzzy logic, to enhance the transparency and quality of the risk evaluation process in healthcare.
Methods: The Multicriteria Evaluation Model was developed using the Decision Expert method and expert knowledge integration. Fuzzy logic was integrated within the model, using partial degrees of membership and probabilistic analysis, to address uncertainties inherent to healthcare risk evaluation. The evaluation model was tested with healthcare professionals active in the field of risk management in clinical practice and compared with the risk matrix.
Results: The designed evaluation model utilizes multicriteria decision-making while encompassing the risk matrix framework to boost user understanding and enable meaningful comparison of results. Compared with the risk matrix, the model provided similar or marginally higher risk-level evaluations. The use of degrees of membership enables evaluators to articulate a wide range of plausible risk consequences, which are often overlooked or ambiguously addressed in the traditional risk matrix approach.
Discussion and conclusions: The evaluation model demonstrates increased transparency of the decision-making process and facilitates in-depth analysis of the evaluation results. The utilization of degrees of membership revealed distinct strategies for handling uncertainty among participants, highlighting the weaknesses of using single value evaluation approach for the presented and similar decision problems. The presented approach is not limited to healthcare-related risk evaluation, but has the capacity to improve risk evaluation practices in diverse settings.
期刊介绍:
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal focusing on all aspects of public health, policy and preventative measures to promote good health and improve morbidity and mortality in the population. Specific topics covered in the journal include:
Public and community health
Policy and law
Preventative and predictive healthcare
Risk and hazard management
Epidemiology, detection and screening
Lifestyle and diet modification
Vaccination and disease transmission/modification programs
Health and safety and occupational health
Healthcare services provision
Health literacy and education
Advertising and promotion of health issues
Health economic evaluations and resource management
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy focuses on human interventional and observational research. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and extended reports. Case reports will only be considered if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature. The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.