An integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in hospital sector

Abstract

Purpose The risk of adverse events in a hospital evaluation is an important process in healthcare management. It involves several technical, social, and economical aspects. The purpose of this paper is to propose an integrated approach to evaluate the risk of adverse events in the hospital sector. Design/methodology/approach This paper aims to provide a decision-making framework to evaluate hospital service. Three well-known methods are applied. More specifically are proposed the following methods: analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, based on mathematics and psychology developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s; decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) to construct interrelations between criteria/factors and VIKOR method, a commonly used multiple-criteria decision analysis technique for determining a compromise solution and improving the quality of decision making. Findings The example provided has demonstrated that the proposed approach is an effective and useful tool to assess the risk of adverse events in the hospital sector. The results could help the hospital identify its high performance level and take appropriate measures in advance to prevent adverse events. The authors can conclude that the promising results obtained in applying the AHP–DEMATEL–VIKOR method suggest that the hybrid method can be used to create decision aids that it simplifies the shared decision-making process. Originality/value This paper presents a novel approach based on the integration of AHP, DEMATEL and VIKOR methods. The final aim is to propose a robust methodology to overcome disadvantages associated with each method.

Selecting the most suitable classification algorithm for supporting assistive technology adoption for people with dementia: A multicriteria framework

“…Considering A + and A − , TOPSIS then estimates a closeness coefficient ( C i ) for each alternative (in this case, classifiers) in order to obtain a ranking where the best solution can be clearly determined (Chen, ). A primary criticism of the TOPSIS method is that an explicit procedure to allocate the weights of criteria/subcriteria is not provided (Behzadian et al, ; Ortiz‐Barrios et al, ; Velasquez & Hester, ). This paper postulates the integration of FAHP and TOPSIS methods as an approach to overcome this inherent weakness.…”

Smart Product Design Process through the Implementation of a Fuzzy Kano-AHP-DEMATEL-QFD Approach

“…AHP assumes complete aggregation among criteria and develops a linear additive model. The weights and scores are achieved basically by pairwise comparisons between all options with each other [64]. The basic procedure to carry out the AHP consists of the following steps:…”

“…In its simplest form, this structure comprises a goal or focus at the topmost level, criteria ( ), subcriteria ( ) at the intermediate levels, while the lowest level contains the alternatives available for the decision-maker ( ) ( Figure 6). Arranging all the components in a hierarchy provides an overall view of the complex relationships and helps the decision-maker to assess whether the elements in each level are of the same magnitude so that they can be compared accurately [64]. An element in a given level does not have to function as a criterion for all the elements in the level below.…”

“…An element in a given level does not have to function as a criterion for all the elements in the level below. Each level may represent a different cut at the problem, so the hierarchy does not need to be completed [64]. When constructing hierarchies, it is essential to consider the environment surrounding the problem and to identify the issues or attributes that contribute to the solution, as well as to identify all participants associated with the problem.…”

A case of food supply chain management with AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS

“…MCDM techniques can then deal with the multicausality nature of the bullwhip effect problem, which can be represented by a set of criteria related to the main causes of this phenomena: demand forecasting updating, order batching, price fluctuations, gaming, and rationing. In addition, the use of AHP and DEMATEL methods enable supply chain managers to design both short-term and long-term strategies based on linear dependency, interdependence, and feedback so that bullwhip effect management can be facilitated (Khan, Chaabane, & Dweiri, 2018;Ortiz-Barrios et al, 2017;Ortiz-Barrios et al, 2018;Wu & Tsai, 2012). This is complemented by the use of TOPSIS, which can calculate the gap between the current performance of bullwhip-phenomena-related criteria and the desired target (Saeida Ardakani, Nejatian, Farhangnejad, & Nejati, 2015;Shukla, Agarwal, Rana, & Purohit, 2017).…”