skip to main content
10.1145/3434780.3436626acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Conceptual Proposal of a Hierarchization System for Patients Candidate to Intensive Care Units in Health Catastrophe Situations

Published:22 January 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

During the year 2020, the World population has been immersed into a pandemic situation due to the complications derived from the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As a consequence of this situation, a world-level public health alert has been activated, implying that national Health systems must adapt to provide for it. COVID-19 meant a challenge for these Health systems, as in the more severe moments of the pandemic a number of situations arose in which there were not enough neither beds, nor staff, to provide a proper care to all the patients that required it. In these situations, it is essential to perform a meticulous and appropriate screening process, as from it depends that the most vulnerable patients showing a better healing probability will be selected, thus avoiding damages that could cost them their life. In these circumstances, it becomes essential to have tools and protocols available to facilitate the triage process that is, in essence, a decision-making problem aimed to establish a hierarchization of cases.

In this work a multi-criteria method is conceptually proposed, based on vague numbers that, taking into account the opinions and considerations of multiple experts, allows to establish a hierarchy that establishes priorities towards Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Because the method is still under development, it hasn't been possible yet to carry out tests intensively, but it is expected that its usage could help the professionals to make decisions in a faster and safer way, improving the process quality and aiming to avoid potential mistakes.

References

  1. Behzadian, M. 2012. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications. 39, 17 (2012), 13051–13069. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Behzadian, M. 2010. PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research. 200, 1 (2010), 198–215. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellman, R.E. and Zadeh, L.A. 1970. Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment. Management Science. (1970). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.4.b141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Brans, J.P. 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The Promethee method. European Journal of Operational Research. (1986). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bustince, H. and Burillo, P. 1996. Vague sets are intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 79, 3 (May 1996), 403–405. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00154-9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Chen, S.M. and Tan, J.M. 1994. Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 67, 2 (1994), 163–172. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(94)90084-1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cid-Ruzafa, J. and Damián-Moreno, J. 1997. Valoración de la discapacidad física: el indice de Barthel. Revista Española de Salud Pública. (1997). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1590/s1135-57271997000200004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyer, J.S. 2005. Maut — Multiattribute Utility Theory. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer. 265–295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. García-Iglesias, J.J. 2020. Impacto del SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) en la salud mental de los profesionales sanitarios: una revisión sistemática. Revista espanola de salud publica. 94, (2020), 23–24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Gau, W.L. and Buehrer, D.J. 1993. Vague Sets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. 23, 2 (1993), 610–614. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/21.229476.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Guzzetta, G. 2020. Potential short-term outcome of an uncontrolled COVID-19 epidemic in Lombardy, Italy, February to March 2020. Eurosurveillance. 25, 12 (Mar. 2020), 2000293. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Hwang, C.L. (Ching-L. and Yoon, K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Manzano Ramírez, A. Documento de Consenso grupo de referentes de UCI-cuidados críticos de OSAKIDETZA - Recomendaciones éticas para la toma de decisiones en la situación excepcional de crisis por pandemia Covid-19 en las Unidades de Cuidados intensivos-Cuidados Críticos.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marsh, E. 1993. Hierarchical Decision Making in Machine Design. Engineering Optimization. (1993).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Odone, A. 2020. COVID-19 deaths in Lombardy, Italy: data in context. The Lancet Public Health. Elsevier Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G.H. 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research. 156, 2 (Jul. 2004), 445–455. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Organización Mundial de la Salud - COVID-19: https://www.who.int/es/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/q-a-coronaviruses. Accessed: 2020-09-17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Percudani, M. 2020. Mental Health Services in Lombardy during COVID-19 outbreak. Psychiatry Research. 288, (Jun. 2020), 112980. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pugh, S. Concept selection- A method that works. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (Rome), 497–506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pugh, S. 1991. Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering. Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Romeo Rubio, M. 2009. Estudio comparativo de ajustes en prótesis fija cerámica entre sistemas CAD-CAM e inyectado. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Tesis Doctoral.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubio, O. 2020. Ethical recommendations for a difficult decision-making in intensive care units due to the exceptional situation of crisis by the COVID-19 pandemia: A rapid review & consensus of experts. Medicina Intensiva. (2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medin.2020.04.006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Saaty, T.L. 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research. 48, 1 (Sep. 1990), 9–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Sedes, P.R. 2020. Plan de contingencia para los servicios de medicina intensiva frente a la pandemia COVID-19. Enfermería Intensiva. 31, 2 (Apr. 2020), 82–89. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfi.2020.03.001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Solís, C. 2005. Índice de Barthel (IB): Un instrumento esencial para la evaluación funcional y la rehabilitación. Plasticidad y restauración …. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Wu, Z. and McGoogan, J.M. 2020. Characteristics of and Important Lessons from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72314 Cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association. 323, 13 (Apr. 2020), 1239–1242. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Xu, Z. 2005. An overview of methods for determining OWA weights. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 20, 8 (Aug. 2005), 843–865. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/int.20097.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Xu, Z. 2007. Multi-person multi-attribute decision making models under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making. 6, 3 (Sep. 2007), 221–236. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-007-9009-7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Xu, Z. and Yager, R.R. 2006. Some geometric aggregation operators based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of General Systems. 35, 4 (Aug. 2006), 417–433. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03081070600574353.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 8, 3 (Jun. 1965), 338–353. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. Conceptual Proposal of a Hierarchization System for Patients Candidate to Intensive Care Units in Health Catastrophe Situations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        TEEM'20: Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality
        October 2020
        1084 pages
        ISBN:9781450388504
        DOI:10.1145/3434780

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 January 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate496of705submissions,70%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format