Flexibility and Consistency in Long-Term Care Rostering

Vincent W. Slaugh, Alan Scheller-Wolf
{"title":"Flexibility and Consistency in Long-Term Care Rostering","authors":"Vincent W. Slaugh, Alan Scheller-Wolf","doi":"10.1287/msom.2022.1174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: We consider the rostering decisions—that is, the assignment of workers scheduled for a shift to units—of a long-term care facility. The facility’s objective is to minimize the monthly inconsistency level, a widely promoted quality metric representing the number of different caregivers working in each unit over one month. Methodology/results: We introduce simple rostering heuristics that prioritize either part-time or full-time workers and present a stochastic model of the repeated rostering problem to compare the performance of different strategies analytically. Our analysis shows that in order to minimize the inconsistency level, part-time workers should receive higher priority than full-time workers for assignment to their home units. We also establish an analytical upper bound for a threshold on the time horizon above which a policy giving assignment priority to part-time workers is guaranteed to outperform one giving priority to full-time workers. Using data from more than 15,000 shifts worked by nursing assistants at three nursing homes, we compare the actual rosters to the hindsight optimal consistency-maximizing schedules, demonstrating a significant opportunity for improvement. We then compare the performance of our rostering heuristics via trace-based simulation of the historical schedules. This reinforces the superiority of prioritizing part-time workers, yielding reductions in the inconsistency level between 20% and 30% compared with the historical rosters. Managerial implications: Contrary to popular guidance, our results show that managers should focus on part-time workers and assign them as consistently as possible. Even if some full-time workers are always assigned to their home units (because of preferences or work rules), assignment flexibility among the remaining full-time workers still enables significant improvements in the consistency of care. This flexibility among full-time workers helps because their higher work frequency tends to make a reassignment away from their home unit contribute less to inconsistency, because they are able to work multiple shifts in these nonhome units. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1174 .","PeriodicalId":18108,"journal":{"name":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","volume":"41 1","pages":"719-736"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem definition: We consider the rostering decisions—that is, the assignment of workers scheduled for a shift to units—of a long-term care facility. The facility’s objective is to minimize the monthly inconsistency level, a widely promoted quality metric representing the number of different caregivers working in each unit over one month. Methodology/results: We introduce simple rostering heuristics that prioritize either part-time or full-time workers and present a stochastic model of the repeated rostering problem to compare the performance of different strategies analytically. Our analysis shows that in order to minimize the inconsistency level, part-time workers should receive higher priority than full-time workers for assignment to their home units. We also establish an analytical upper bound for a threshold on the time horizon above which a policy giving assignment priority to part-time workers is guaranteed to outperform one giving priority to full-time workers. Using data from more than 15,000 shifts worked by nursing assistants at three nursing homes, we compare the actual rosters to the hindsight optimal consistency-maximizing schedules, demonstrating a significant opportunity for improvement. We then compare the performance of our rostering heuristics via trace-based simulation of the historical schedules. This reinforces the superiority of prioritizing part-time workers, yielding reductions in the inconsistency level between 20% and 30% compared with the historical rosters. Managerial implications: Contrary to popular guidance, our results show that managers should focus on part-time workers and assign them as consistently as possible. Even if some full-time workers are always assigned to their home units (because of preferences or work rules), assignment flexibility among the remaining full-time workers still enables significant improvements in the consistency of care. This flexibility among full-time workers helps because their higher work frequency tends to make a reassignment away from their home unit contribute less to inconsistency, because they are able to work multiple shifts in these nonhome units. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1174 .
长期护理值班的灵活性和一致性
问题定义:我们考虑一个长期护理机构的排班决策,即安排工人轮班到单位的分配。该机构的目标是尽量减少每月的不一致水平,这是一个广泛推广的质量指标,代表了每个单位在一个月内工作的不同护理人员的数量。方法/结果:我们引入了简单的名册启发式方法,优先考虑兼职或全职工人,并提出了重复名册问题的随机模型,以分析比较不同策略的性能。我们的分析表明,为了尽量减少不一致的程度,兼职工人应该得到比全职工人更高的优先级分配到他们的家庭单位。我们还建立了一个时间范围阈值的分析上限,在该阈值之上,给予兼职工人优先分配的政策保证优于给予全职工人优先分配的政策。使用来自三家养老院的护理助理超过15,000个班次的数据,我们将实际的花名册与后见之明的最佳一致性最大化时间表进行了比较,证明了改进的重大机会。然后,我们通过基于跟踪的历史调度模拟来比较我们的名册启发式算法的性能。这加强了优先考虑兼职工人的优势,与历史名册相比,不一致性水平降低了20%到30%。管理启示:与流行的指导相反,我们的结果表明,管理者应该关注兼职员工,并尽可能始终如一地分配给他们。即使一些全职工人总是被分配到他们的家庭单位(因为偏好或工作规则),分配的灵活性,其余的全职工人仍然可以显著提高护理的一致性。全职员工的这种灵活性是有帮助的,因为他们更高的工作频率往往会使他们离开家庭单位的重新分配对不一致性的影响更小,因为他们能够在这些非家庭单位轮班工作。补充材料:电子伴侣可在https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1174上获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信