Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Tracking, Modelling, and Understanding of Pandemic Outbreak with Artificial Intelligence and IoT
Published in Ram Shringar Raw, Vishal Jain, Sanjoy Das, Meenakshi Sharma, Pandemic Detection and Analysis Through Smart Computing Technologies, 2022
Sapna Kataria, Anjali Chaudhary, Neeta Sharma
To effectively manage the global pandemic situation like the COVID-19, expert needs to develop a Ranking system for countries based on the risk factor in that geographical area. This ranking algorithm can be developed according to the variety of medical facilities as well as non-medical factors. There could be some major factors including threat of infection, deaths due to virus, lifelong health conditions, hospitalization, negative economic factors of country, quality-of-life, etc. This analysis will be very useful to predict which countries have the highest possibility of positive outcomes throughout the global pandemic. In this type of analysis, a large number of parameters will be used further grouped into various categories such as: virus spread risk, Government administration, Healthcare Adeptness, emergency treatment, disease management and Area Specific Risks, etc., [3]. Some dynamic parameters should also be considered in these algorithms according to the unique conditions of the geographical area, which varies according to the countries such as highly consistent economy, high level supply-chain, vivid tourism, efficient policies, etc.
Radiobiology of Tumours
Published in W. P. M. Mayles, A. E. Nahum, J.-C. Rosenwald, Handbook of Radiotherapy Physics, 2021
Gordon Steel, Catharine West, Alan Nahum
These rankings were considered to broadly reflect clinical experience. Figure 6.10 shows a relationship between the mean SF2 values for cell lines and their clinical radiocurability. Although there is a clear trend for a lower SF2 in radiation-curable versus refractory tumours, the large intra-group heterogeneity should be noted. An extensive study on cervix cancer demonstrated that the SF2 of primary human tumours was an independent prognostic factor for the outcomes of radiotherapy (West 2007).
The logistics of planning an MBA
Published in Emma Stanton, Claire Lemer, MBA for Medics, 2021
In many ways, a sub component of rankings or reputation that may be important is the strength or indeed existence of a department that is interested in healthcare. Some, for example Harvard, Said and Imperial, have or are building strong healthcare faculties and it may be important to the applicant that this is present.
Children’s hospital quality ratings: where are we and can we do better?
Published in Hospital Practice, 2021
David Chaulk, Theresa Tran, Allison Neeley, Angelo Giardino
The US News and World Report (USNWR) Best Children’s Hospitals Report and the Leapfrog Pediatric Care Survey are prevalent children’s hospital rating systems. These pediatric focused rating systems have not been analyzed as extensively as ‘adult’ surveys have been. The purpose of these reports is to guide patient and family/guardian decision-making when attempting to identify high-quality care. Health systems may use these rankings to improve and promote the quality of care they provide. Responding to surveys that inform these rankings is both time consuming and costly for hospitals and health systems, requiring dedicated teams and analysts. When scrutinized, the results reported in these ratings are often conflicting and can be misleading to patients [1]. For example, results of the annual USNWR Best (Adult) Hospitals Survey are poorly correlated with results from the Leapfrog (Adult) Hospital Survey and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) star rating [1,2]. There are shortcomings in the methodology used by these rating systems. As Bae et al. identify [3], ordinal ranking systems convey a false sense of precision and do not truly differentiate number 1 from number 50. This false precision is misleading to patients. It may also promote health systems to focus on areas that improve their ranking but do not necessarily deliver better care or outcomes, which may exacerbate health disparities [3].
Developing hospital accreditation standards: Applying fuzzy DEMATEL
Published in International Journal of Healthcare Management, 2021
Ladan Ghadami, Iravan Masoudi Asl, Somayeh Hessam, Mahmoud Modiri
In this study, the fuzzy DEMATEL technique was employed to rank and weight categories, subcategories, and standards of hospital accreditation. Ranking these factors can be effective in decision-making and executive measures to improve the quality of hospital services by determining the effect of a decision on other areas. Moreover, the executive measures with similar and overlapping results can be identified by ranking and weighting outcomes used for more efficient execution-related decision-making hospitals did not know which standards could lead to quality improvement and which standards would help hospitals improve service quality. Finally, hospitals can benefit from the weighting results to evaluate the importance of the standards and concentrate on more effective standards to improve their services.
A discussion of the United States’ and Egypt’s health care quality improvement efforts
Published in International Journal of Healthcare Management, 2021
The impetus for the United States'use of publicly reported information to drive clinical quality can be traced to a 2002 public-private partnership of consumers, hospitals, doctors, employers, accrediting organizations, and federal agencies that sought to improve health care by voluntarily collecting and reporting data on quality of care [38]. In April 2005, CMS began publishing information about hospitals’ performance and rankings based on these measures on the internet [39]. The alignment of the Joint Commission and CMS quality measures established a mechanism through which accredited and nonaccredited hospitals could be compared using the same nationally standardized quality measures [40]. Furthermore the government tied the cost update for public reimbursement for hospital care to voluntary reporting of this information, resulting in participation by more than 98% of all hospitals in the United States [41].