پیامدهای عدم‌قطعیت داده‌های نظام اطلاعات بیمارستانی در ارزیابی عملکرد: یک رویکرد مقاوم مبتنی بر تحلیل‌پوششی‌داده‌ها

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دکتری، مدیریت صنعتی، گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران
2 دانشیار، مدیریت صنعتی، گروه مدیریت، دانشگاه میبد، میبد، ایران
10.48305/him.2026.46131.1388
چکیده
مقدمه: ارزیابی کارایی بیمارستان‌ها به‌طور گسترده‌ای بر داده‌های نظام اطلاعات سلامت متکی است که در کنار داده‌های قطعی، شامل شاخص‌هایی هستند که به دلیل محدودیت‌های اندازه‌گیری، کیفیت ثبت داده‌ها و نوسانات اطلاعاتی با درجاتی از عدم‌قطعیت همراه‌اند.
روش بررسی: با توجه به ماهیت داده‌های تولیدشده در چرخه‌ی مدیریت اطلاعات بیمارستانی و تفاوت در قابلیت اتکای شاخص‌ها، چارچوبی مبتنی بر تحلیل‌پوششی‌داده‌های مقاوم ارایه شد که امکان مدل‌سازی هم‌زمان داده‌های قطعی و غیرقطعی را فراهم می‌کند. سه مدل مقاوم برای لحاظ کردن عدم‌قطعیت در ورودی‌ها، خروجی‌ها و هر دو توسعه یافت و عملکرد آن‌ها از طریق مطالعه موردی بیمارستانی ارزیابی شد.
یافته‌ها: ۵۹٫ نتایج نشان داد که وجود عدم‌قطعیت در داده‌های نظام اطلاعات سلامت می‌تواند موجب ناپایداری مقادیر کارایی و کاهش قابلیت اتکای نتایج ارزیابی عملکرد شود. در مقابل، مدل‌های پیشنهادی در مقایسه با مدل کلاسیک، مقادیر کارایی پایدارتر و رتبه‌بندی منسجم‌تری ارایه کرده و از بروز مقادیر کارایی غیرواقعی جلوگیری کردند.
نتیجه‌گیری: چارچوب پیشنهادی با تفکیک داده‌های قطعی و غیرقطعی، ارزیابی واقع‌بینانه‌تری از عملکرد بیمارستان‌ها در نظام‌های‌اطلاعات‌سلامت فراهم می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Implications of Uncertainty in Hospital Information System Data for Performance Evaluation: A Robust Data Envelopment Analysis Approach

نویسندگان English

Hoda Moradi 1
Hamid Babaei Meybodi 2
1 PhD, Industrial Management, Department of Management, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran
2 Associate professor, Industrial Management, Department of Management, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran
چکیده English

Background: Hospital efficiency evaluation relies heavily on data obtained from Health Information Systems. Along with deterministic data, these systems contain indicators that may be affected by measurement limitations, data recording quality, and information fluctuations, resulting in different levels of uncertainty. However, existing approaches do not explicitly consider the coexistence of deterministic and uncertain data.

Methods: Considering the nature of data generated during hospital information management processes and differences in the reliability of indicators, a generalized robust DEA framework was developed to simultaneously model deterministic and uncertain data. Three robust models were developed to incorporate uncertainty in inputs, outputs, and both inputs and outputs. The performance of the proposed models was evaluated through a hospital case study.

Results: The results showed that uncertainty in HIS data can lead to instability in efficiency values and reduce the reliability of performance evaluation results. Compared with the conventional DEA model, the proposed models provided more stable efficiency scores, more consistent rankings, and reduced the occurrence of unrealistic efficiency values.

Conclusion: By distinguishing between deterministic and uncertain data, the proposed framework provides a more realistic and reliable evaluation of hospital performance within Health Information Systems.

Key Message: Applying this framework in Health Information Systems can reduce the effects of data uncertainty on performance evaluation and support managerial decision-making, particularly in resource allocation and hospital performance improvement.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Hospitals
Operations Research
Health Information Systems
Uncertainty
Efficiency
1.      Sanjuluca THP, de Almeida AA, Cruz-Correia R. Assessing the use of hospital information systems (HIS) to support decision-making: A cross-sectional study in public hospitals in the Huíla Health Region of southern Angola. In: Healthcare. MDPI; 2022. p. 1267.
2.      Khorasani H, Damiri S, Abbasi S, Fathabadi A, Dehghani M, Sadeghi M. Hospital information systems evaluation criteria: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research. 2026 Jan 8;26(1):184.
3.      Syed R, Eden R, Makasi T, Chukwudi I, Mamudu A, Kamalpour M, et al. Digital health data quality issues: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2023;25:e42615.
4.      Hosseinzadeh E, Afkanpour M, Momeni M, Tabesh H. Data quality assessment in healthcare, dimensions, methods and tools: a systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2025;25(1):296.
5.      Zhu T, Xie J, Sim M. Joint estimation and robustness optimization. Management Science. 2022;68(3):1659–77.
6.      Omrani H, Alizadeh A, Emrouznejad A, Teplova T. A robust credibility DEA model with fuzzy perturbation degree: An application to hospitals performance. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022;189:116021.
7.      Li Y, Yorke-Smith N, Keviczky T. On data-driven robust optimization with multiple uncertainty subsets: Unified uncertainty set representation and mitigating conservatism. Journal of Process Control. 2026;158:103611.
8.      Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A. Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Operations research letters. 1999;25(1):1–13.
9.      Bertsimas D, Sim M. The Price of Robustness. Operations Research. 2004 Feb 1;52:35–53.
10.   Moradi H, Razavi M. Presentation the simulation model for paraclinical services in Shiraz Hafez hospital‎ and‎ evaluate scenarios to reduce waiting time. Health Information Management. 2016;13(1):11–8.
11.   Moradi H, Babaei Meybodi H. Development of a series-parallel data envelopment analysis model within an intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Modeling Journal (FOMJ) [Internet]. 2025;6(3):1–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.57647/j.fomj.2025.0603.14
12.   Afonso GP, Figueira JR, Ferreira DC. Dealing with uncertainty in healthcare performance assessment: a fuzzy network‐DEA approach with undesirable outputs. International Transactions in Operational Research. 2025;32(5):2732–66.
13.   Moradi H, Babaei Meybodi H. A Non-Radial SBM DEA Framework for Assessing the Performance of EU Countries. Advances in Industrial Engineering [Internet]. 2026;60(1):143–65. Available from: https://aie.ut.ac.ir/article_106336.html
14.   Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research. 1978;2(6):429–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8
15.   Ben-Tal A, Nemirovski A. Robust solutions of linear programming problems contaminated with uncertain data. Mathematical programming. 2000;88(3):411–24.
16.   Sadjadi SJ, Omrani H. Data envelopment analysis with uncertain data: An application for Iranian electricity distribution companies. Energy Policy [Internet]. 2008;36(11):4247–54. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508004047
17.   Zubir MZ, Noor AA, Mohd Rizal AM, Harith AA, Abas MI, Zakaria Z, et al. Approach in inputs & outputs selection of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) efficiency measurement in hospitals: A systematic review. Plos one. 2024;19(8):e0293694.
18.   Flokou A, Aletras V, Niakas D. A window-DEA based efficiency evaluation of the public hospital sector in Greece during the 5-year economic crisis. PloS one. 2017;12(5):e0177946.
19.   Zheng W, Sun H, Zhang P, Zhou G, Jin Q, Lu X. A four-stage DEA-based efficiency evaluation of public hospitals in China after the implementation of new medical reforms. PloS one. 2018;13(10):e0203780.
20.   Peykani P, Memar-Masjed E, Arabjazi N, Mirmozaffari M. Dynamic performance assessment of hospitals by applying credibility-based fuzzy window data envelopment analysis. In: Healthcare. MDPI; 2022. p. 876.
21.   Jing R, Xu T, Lai X, Mahmoudi E, Fang H. Technical efficiency of public and private hospitals in Beijing, China: a comparative study. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2020;17(1):82.
22.   Wu D, Wu DD, Member S. Risk-Based Robust Evaluation of Hospital Efficiency. IEEE Systems Journal. 2018;PP:1–9.
23. Peykani P, Pishvaee MS. Performance evaluation of hospitals under data uncertainty: An uncertain common-weights data envelopment analysis. In: Healthcare. MDPI; 2024. p. 611