The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Scheduling outpatient appointments in a dynamic environment
Abstract
The primary issue addressed in this research is how to schedule clients as they call for appointments, without knowing which “types” of clients will call at a later time. The main goal is to compare various scheduling rules in order to minimize the waiting time of the clients as well as the idle time of the service provider. Interviews with receptionists verified that they have knowledge regarding differences between clients' service time characteristics. This information is used both to differentiate between clients and to develop various scheduling rules for those clients. A simulation model of a dynamic medical outpatient environment is developed based on insight gained from the interviews and from prior research. Two decision variables are analyzed (“scheduling rule” and “position of appointment slots left unscheduled for potential urgent calls”) while two environmental factors are varied (“expected mean of the clients' service time”, and “expected percentage of clients with low service time standard deviation compared to those with high service time standard deviation”). This resulted in 30 combinations of decision variables, each tested within 15 combinations of environmental factors. By using multiple performance measures, it is possible to improve considerably on some of the “best” rules found in the current literature. The “best” decisions depend on the goals of the particular clinic as well as the environment it encounters. However, good or best results can be obtained in all cases if clients with large service time standard deviations are scheduled toward the end of the appointment session. The best positioning of slots left open for urgent clients is less clear cut, but options are identified for each of a number of possible clinic goals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Appointment Scheduling in Health Care: Challenges and Opportunities
Gupta, D., & Denton, B. (2008) · IIE Transactions · doi:10.1080/07408170802165880 · Cited by 1,043
OUTPATIENT SCHEDULING IN HEALTH CARE: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CAYIRLI, T., & VERAL, E. (2003) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2003.tb00218.x · Cited by 986
Application of discrete-event simulation in health care clinics: A survey
Jun, J. B., Jacobson, S. H., & Swisher, J. R. (1999) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600669 · Cited by 852
Clinic Overbooking to Improve Patient Access and Increase Provider Productivity*
LaGanga, L. R., & Lawrence, S. R. (2007) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00158.x · Cited by 338
Srinivas, S., & Ravindran, A. R. (2018) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.02.022 · Cited by 147
Metadata
- Authors
- Klassen, K. J., & Rohleder, T. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 83-101
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W2087663824
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Scheduling outpatient appointments in a dynamic environment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0272-6963(95)00044-5
- The paper
- Klassen, K. J., & Rohleder, T. R. (1996). Scheduling outpatient appointments in a dynamic environment. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(95)00044-5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.