Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content
Log in

Supporting decision-making in patient risk assessment using a hierarchical fuzzy model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present a hierarchical fuzzy model to support patient triage in primary health care. In developing countries like Brazil, public health must usually cover degraded territories; thus, allocating patients to health services is very hard due low availability, enormous demands, and the complexity of assessing patient conditions—which must account for more then physical aspects of patients, but their social conditions as well. This approach combines the fuzzy set theory under the AHP framework in order to illustrate the inherent imprecision in the evaluation of patient risk. Fieldwork was conducted in a primary healthcare facility in Brazil to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach. The proposed approach represents criterion in the formation of patients’ risk scores encompassing important aspects of primary care triage such as the structure of families, the conditions of residences, exposure to urban violence, and other aspects of patients’ lives, taking the risk assessment beyond the simple evaluation of symptoms and physiological conditions. Our approach focuses on enforcing decisions of public health workers by improving the awareness of patients’ conditions, which we believe will make the employment of triage criteria uniform and capable of showing tendencies on patients’ risks, as well as avoiding bias in patient triage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Ashour OM, Okudan, GE, Smith CA (2010) An improved triage algorithm for emergency departments based on fuzzy AHP and utility theory. In: Johnson A, Miller J (eds) Proceedings of the 2010 industrial engineering research conference

  • Bartolin R, Bouvenot G, Soula G, Sanchez E (1982) The fuzzy set theory as a biomedical diagnostic aid. Sem Hop 58(22):1361–1365

    Google Scholar 

  • Gharahighehi A, Kheirkhah AS, Bagheri A (2016) Improving performances of the emergency department using discrete event simulation DEA and the MADM methods. Digital Health 2:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207616664619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong Z, Lin Y, Yao T (2012) Uncertain fuzzy preference relations and their applications. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grecco CH, Consenza CA, Dos Santos IJ, Carvalho PV (2014) Safety culture assessment: a fuzzy model for improving safety performance in a radioactive installation. Prog Nuclear Energy 70:71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jatoba A, Bellas HC, Bonfatti RJ, Burns CM, Vidal MR, Carvalho PR (2016) Designing for patient risk assessment in primary health care: a case study. Cognit Technol Work 18(1):215–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0355-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G (1997) An overview of naturalistic decision making applications. In: Zsambok CE, Klein G (eds) Naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 49–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee C, Ru C, Yeung C, Choy K, Ip W (2015) Analyze the healthcare service requirement using fuzzy QFD. Comput Ind 74:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manchester Triage Group (2005) Emergency triage. Wiley, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Moumjid N, Gafni A, Brémond A, Carrère M-O (2007) Shared decision making in the medical encounter: Are we all talking about the same thing? Med Decis Mak 27(5):539–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimi SA, Jamshidi A, Ruiz A, Ait-kadi D (2016) A new dynamic integrated framework for surgical patients’ prioritization considering risks and uncertainties. Decis Support Syst 88:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saay RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel O, Omisore M, Ojokoh B (2013) A web based decision support system driven by fuzzy logic for the diagnosis of typhoid fever. Expert Syst Appl 40:4164–4171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez A (1998) Fuzzy logic and inflammatory protein variations. Clin Chim Acta 270:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savassi LC, Carvalho HR, Mariano FM, Lamberti C, Mendonça MF, Yamana G, Pereira R (2012a) Proposal of a protocol for individual risk classification for home care in primary health. J Manag Prim Health Care 3(2):151–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Savassi L, Lage J, Coelho F (2012b) Systematization of a stratification questionnaire for family risk: Coelho-Savassi’s Family Risk Scale. J Manag Prim Health Care 3(2):179–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt T, Wiil UK (2015) Identifying patients at risk of deterioration in the Joint Emergency Department. Cognit Technol Work 17(4):529–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu PL, Chiang CY (2002) Decision making, habitual domains and information technology. Int J Info Tech Decis Mak 1(1):5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1(8):338–353

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975a) Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese 30(3–4):407–428

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975b) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf Sci 8(3):199–249

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the family healthcare professionals who participated in this study and the staff of the Germano Sinval Faria Health Care Center and School/Oswaldo Cruz Foundation led by Dr. Emilia Correia.

Funding

This research has been partially funded by the Science without Borders Program/Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development and by the Group of Ergonomics and New Technologies/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Jatobá.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jatobá, A., Bellas, H.C., Koster, I. et al. Supporting decision-making in patient risk assessment using a hierarchical fuzzy model. Cogn Tech Work 20, 477–488 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0475-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0475-1

Keywords

Navigation