多标准风险评估模型:利用模糊逻辑提高医疗风险评估的透明度和质量。

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2025-02-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/RMHP.S490598
Rok Drnovšek, Marija Milavec Kapun, Simona Šteblaj, Uroš Rajkovič
{"title":"多标准风险评估模型:利用模糊逻辑提高医疗风险评估的透明度和质量。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

简介:风险管理对于现代医疗保健组织的质量保证至关重要。风险矩阵被广泛用于评估医疗机构的风险;然而,这种方法有明显的弱点和局限性。本文提出了一种利用多准则决策和模糊逻辑的新型风险评价模型,以提高医疗风险评价过程的透明度和质量。方法:采用决策专家方法和专家知识集成,建立多准则评价模型。模糊逻辑集成到模型中,使用部分隶属度和概率分析,以解决医疗风险评估固有的不确定性。评估模型在临床实践中与活跃于风险管理领域的卫生保健专业人员进行了测试,并与风险矩阵进行了比较。结果:设计的评估模型采用多标准决策,同时包含风险矩阵框架,以促进用户理解并使结果进行有意义的比较。与风险矩阵相比,该模型提供了相似或略高的风险水平评估。成员度的使用使评估者能够清楚地表达出广泛的可能的风险后果,这在传统的风险矩阵方法中经常被忽视或模糊地处理。讨论与结论:评价模型增加了决策过程的透明度,便于对评价结果进行深入分析。隶属度的利用揭示了处理参与者之间不确定性的不同策略,突出了使用单一值评估方法处理所提出和类似决策问题的弱点。所提出的方法不仅限于与医疗保健相关的风险评估,而且具有在不同环境中改进风险评估实践的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Multicriteria Risk Evaluation Model: Utilizing Fuzzy Logic for Improved Transparency and Quality of Risk Evaluation in Healthcare.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
242
审稿时长
16 weeks
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.
×
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