Assigning nurses to appropriate departments and work shifts based on human factors can strengthen teamwork and boost the efficiency of healthcare systems. The human factors considered in this study include skill, preference, and compatibility of nurses. In this regard, a unique multi-objective mathematical model for nurse scheduling is proposed in this article, in which nurses’ decision-making styles are taken into account. Three objectives, including minimization of the total cost of staffing, minimization of the sum of incompatibility among nurses’ decision-making styles assigned to the same shift days, and maximization of the overall satisfaction of nurses for their assigned shifts, are addressed in this model. Three meta-heuristics, namely, multi-objective Keshtel algorithm, non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II, and multi-objective tabu search, are developed to solve the problem. Moreover, a data envelopment analysis method is employed to rank the obtained Pareto solutions. Afterwards, a real-life case at a large hospital in Tehran, Iran, is investigated. Eventually, the applicability and effectiveness of the proposed model are assessed based on the experimental results.
DriverMJBrousseauKRHunsakerPL.The dynamic decision maker: five decision styles for executive and business success. Lincoln, NE: IUniverse, 1998.
2.
ZurnPDoleaCStilwellB. Nurse retention and recruitment: developing a motivated workforce (The Global Nursing Review Initiative, Issue paper no. 4). Geneva: WHO, 2005.
3.
WeltonJM.Paying for nursing care in hospitals. Am J Nurs2006; 106: 67–69.
El AdolyAAGheithMForsMN.A new formulation and solution for the nurse scheduling problem: a case study in Egypt. Alexandria Eng J2018; 57: 2289–2298.
6.
CurtoisT.Novel heuristic and metaheuristic approaches to the automated scheduling of healthcare personnel. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, 2007.
7.
SolosIPTassopoulosIXBeligiannisGN.A generic two-phase stochastic variable neighborhood approach for effectively solving the nurse rostering problem. Algorithms2013; 6: 278–308.
8.
TopalogluSSelimH.Nurse scheduling using fuzzy modeling approach. Fuzzy Set Syst2010; 161: 1543–1563.
9.
CheragiMAManoocheriHMohammadnejadE, et al. Types and causes of medication errors from nurse’s viewpoint. Iran J Nur Midwifery Res2013; 18: 228–231.
CRICO Strategies. Malpractice risks in communication failures: 2015 annual benchmarking report. Report, CRICO, Boston, MA, 10February2015.
12.
PhamJCStoryJLHicksRW, et al. National study on the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported emergency department medication errors. J Emerg Med2011; 40: 485–492.
13.
World Health Organization. Medication errors: technical series on safer primary care. Geneva: WHO, 2016.
14.
HamidMNasiriMMWernerF, et al. Operating room scheduling by considering the decision-making styles of surgical team members: a comprehensive approach. Comput Oper Res2019; 108: 166–181.
15.
AzadehAZarrinMHamidM.A novel framework for improvement of road accidents considering decision-making styles of drivers in a large metropolitan area. Accident Anal Prev2016; 87: 17–33.
16.
VenkataramanRBruscoM.An integrated analysis of nurse staffing and scheduling policies. Omega1996; 24: 57–71.
17.
MischekFMusliuN.Integer programming model extensions for a multi-stage nurse rostering problem. Ann Oper Res2019; 275: 123–143.
18.
PunnakitikashemPRosenberberJMBuckley-BehanDF.A stochastic programming approach for integrated nurse staffing and assignment. IIE T2013; 45: 1059–1076.
19.
BagheriMDevinAGIzanlooA.An application of stochastic programming method for nurse scheduling problem in real word hospital. Comput Ind Eng2016; 96: 192–200.
20.
HuangY-CHsiehY-HHsiaF-Y.A study on nurse day-off scheduling under the consideration of binary preference. J Ind Prod Eng2016; 33: 363–372.
21.
NasiriMMRahvarM.A two-step multi-objective mathematical model for nurse scheduling problem considering nurse preferences and consecutive shifts. Int J Serv Oper Manage2017; 27: 83–101.
22.
HamidMBarzinpourFHamidM, et al. A multi-objective mathematical model for nurse scheduling problem with hybrid DEA and augmented ε-constraint method: a case study. J Ind Syst Eng2018; 11: 98–108.
23.
AngBYLamSWSPasupathyY, et al. Nurse workforce scheduling in the emergency department: a sequential decision support system considering multiple objectives. J Nurs Manage2018; 26: 432–441.
24.
SvirskoACNormanBARauschD, et al. Using mathematical modeling to improve the emergency department nurse-scheduling process. J Emerg Nurs2019; 45: 425–432.
25.
OsogamiTImaiH. Classification of various neighborhood operations for the nurse scheduling problem. In: GoosGHartmanisJVan LeeuwenJ, et al. (eds) Algorithms and computation. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2000, pp.72–83.
26.
DowslandKA.Nurse scheduling with tabu search and strategic oscillation. Eur J Oper Res1998; 106: 393–407.
27.
DowslandKAThompsonJM.Solving a nurse scheduling problem with knapsacks, networks and tabu search. J Oper Res Soc2000; 51: 825–833.
28.
BellantiFCarelloGDella CroceF, et al. A greedy-based neighborhood search approach to a nurse rostering problem. Eur J Oper Res2004; 153: 28–40.
29.
BardJFPurnomoHW.Hospital-wide reactive scheduling of nurses with preference considerations. IIE T2005; 37: 589–608.
30.
HadwanMAyobMAl-HageryM, et al. Climbing harmony search algorithm for nurse rostering problems. In: SaeedFGazemNMohammedF, et al. (eds) International conference of reliable information and communication technology. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp.74–83.
TsaiC-CLiSH.A two-stage modeling with genetic algorithms for the nurse scheduling problem. Expert Syst Appl2009; 36: 9506–9512.
34.
MozMPatoMV.A genetic algorithm approach to a nurse rerostering problem. Comput Oper Res2007; 34: 667–691.
35.
ShiPLanda-SilvaD. Lookahead policy and genetic algorithm for solving nurse rostering problems. In: NicosiaGPardalosPGiuffridaG, et al. (eds) International conference on machine learning, optimization, and data science. Cham: Springer, 2018, pp.460–471.
36.
WongTXuMChinK.A two-stage heuristic approach for nurse scheduling problem: a case study in an emergency department. Comput Oper Res2014; 51: 99–110.
37.
JafariHSalmasiN.Maximizing the nurses’ preferences in nurse scheduling problem: mathematical modeling and a meta-heuristic algorithm. J Ind Eng Int2015; 11: 439–458.
38.
LiuZLiuZZhuZ, et al. Simulated annealing for a multi-level nurse rostering problem in hemodialysis service. Appl Soft Comput2018; 64: 148–160.
39.
LimGJMobasherABardJF, et al. Nurse scheduling with lunch break assignments in operating suites. Oper Res Hlth Care2016; 10: 35–48.
40.
AwadallahMAAl-BetarMAKhaderAT, et al. Hybridization of harmony search with hill climbing for highly constrained nurse rostering problem. Neural Comput Appl2017; 28: 463–482.
41.
GomesRAToffoloTASantosHG.Variable neighborhood search accelerated column generation for the nurse rostering problem. Electr Notes Discret Math2017; 58: 31–38.
42.
RamliRRahmanRARohimN.A hybrid ant colony optimization algorithm for solving a highly constrained nurse rostering problem. J ICT2019; 18: 305–326.
43.
JaradatGMAl-BadareenAAyobM, et al. Hybrid elitist-ant system for nurse-rostering problem. J King Saud Univ: Comput Inform Sci2019; 31: 378–384.
44.
McInnesSPetersKBonneyA, et al. An integrative review of facilitators and barriers influencing collaboration and teamwork between general practitioners and nurses working in general practice. J Adv Nurs2015; 71: 1973–1985.
45.
YlitörmänenTKvistTTurunenH.A web-based survey of Finnish nurses’ perceptions of conflict management in nurse-nurse collaboration. Int J Caring Sci2015; 8: 263–273.
ApkerJProppKMFordWSZ, et al. Collaboration, credibility, compassion, and coordination: professional nurse communication skill sets in health care team interactions. J Prof Nurs2006; 22: 180–189.
48.
MachtGANembhardDA.Measures and models of personality and their effects on communication and team performance. Int J Ind Ergonom2015; 49: 78–89.
49.
XuJMontagueE.Psychophysiology of the passive user: exploring the effect of technological conditions and personality traits. Int J Ind Ergonom2012; 42: 505–512.
50.
MazzoccoKPetittiDBFongKT, et al. Surgical team behaviors and patient outcomes. Am J Surg2009; 197: 678–685.
51.
WeaverSJRosenMADiazGranadosD, et al. Does teamwork improve performance in the operating room? A multilevel evaluation. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf2010; 36: 133–142.
52.
ParhiziSSteegeLMPasupathyKS.Mining the relationships between psychosocial factors and fatigue dimensions among registered nurses. Int J Ind Ergonom2013; 43: 82–90.
53.
AzadehARavanbakhshMRezaei-MalekM, et al. Unique NSGA-II and MOPSO algorithms for improved dynamic cellular manufacturing systems considering human factors. Appl Math Model2017; 48: 655–672.
54.
AzadehARezaei-MalekMEvazabadianF, et al. Improved design of CMS by considering operators decision-making styles. Int J Prod Res2015; 53: 3276–3287.
55.
ColorniADorigoMManiezzoV. A genetic algorithm to solve the timetable problem. Report no. TR 1992: 90-060. Milan: Politecnico di Milano.
56.
LewisR.A survey of Meta-heuristic-based techniques for university timetabling problems. OR Spectrum2008; 30: 167–190.
57.
AwadallahMABolaji ALa Al-BetarMA.A hybrid artificial bee colony for a nurse rostering problem. Appl Soft Comput2015; 35: 726–739.
58.
BeddoeGPetrovicSLiJ.A hybrid metaheuristic case-based reasoning system for nurse rostering. J Sched2009; 12: 99.
59.
GoyalKKJainPJainM.Optimal configuration selection for reconfigurable manufacturing system using NSGA II and TOPSIS. Int J Prod Res2012; 50: 4175–4191.
60.
RabbaniMHeidariRYazdanparastR.A stochastic multi-period industrial hazardous waste location-routing problem: integrating NSGA-II and Monte Carlo simulation. Eur J Oper Res2019; 272: 945–961.
61.
Hajiaghaei-KeshteliMAminnayeriM.Solving the integrated scheduling of production and rail transportation problem by Keshtel algorithm. Appl Soft Comput2014; 25: 184–203.
62.
CheraghalipourAPaydarMMHajiaghaei-KeshteliM.A bi-objective optimization for citrus closed-loop supply chain using Pareto-based algorithms. Appl Soft Comput2018; 69: 33–59.
63.
SrinivasNDebK.Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput1994; 2: 221–248.
64.
AnsarifarJTavakkoli-MoghaddamRAkhavizadeganF, et al. Multi-objective integrated planning and scheduling model for operating rooms under uncertainty. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2018; 232: 930–948.
65.
JaeggiDParksGTKipourosT, et al. A multi-objective Tabu search algorithm for constrained optimisation problems. In: Coello CoelloCAHernández AguirreAZitzlerE (eds) Evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2005, pp.490–504.
66.
MohammadiMJolaiFTavakkoli-MoghaddamR.Solving a new stochastic multi-mode p-hub covering location problem considering risk by a novel multi-objective algorithm. Appl Math Model2013; 37: 10053–10073.
67.
HamidMBastanMHamidM, et al. Solving a stochastic multi-objective and multi-period hub location problem considering economic aspects by meta-heuristics: application in public transportation. Int J Comput Appl T2019; 60: 183–202.
68.
SheskinDJ.Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2003.
69.
ZhalechianMTavakkoli-MoghaddamRRahimiY, et al. An interactive possibilistic programming approach for a multi-objective hub location problem: economic and environmental design. Appl Soft Comput2017; 52: 699–713.
ZarJH. Biostatistical Analysis. Pearson Education India, 1999.
72.
HamidMHamidMNasiriMM, et al. Improvement of operating room performance using a multi-objective mathematical model and data envelopment analysis: a case study. Int J Ind Eng Prod Res2018; 29: 117–132.
73.
AzadehATohidiHZarrinM, et al. An integrated algorithm for performance optimization of neurosurgical ICUs. Expert Syst Appl2016; 43: 142–153.
74.
YazdanparastRHamidMAzadehA, et al. An intelligent algorithm for optimization of resource allocation problem by considering human error in an emergency. J Ind Syst Eng2018; 11: 287–309.
75.
CharnesACooperWWRhodesE.Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res1978; 2: 429–444.
76.
CookWDToneKZhuJ.Data envelopment analysis: prior to choosing a model. Omega2014; 44: 1–4.
77.
TolooM.The most efficient unit without explicit inputs: an extended MILP-DEA model. Measurement2013; 46: 3628–3634.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
