Printer Friendly

The functionality comparison of the health care systems by the analytical hierarchy process method.


Hospitals are the weakest segment of the Slovak health care system. Their basic problems are evident in outdated material-technical base, demotivation of physicians, lack of care for the chronically and severely ill patients, regulated and non-competing system of health insurance companies, dysfunctional system of trainings for physician and health professionals. Health care providers (HCP) assess the current health care system as completely unstable. The longterm negative phenomena of the most Slovak hospitals is their loss making management, which affects the condition of the buildings, equipment, reward system, as well as the working conditions, the logistics system of medicines, medical materials, etc. There is a long term absence of the investment resources, which were in the past covered by the capital subsidies from the State budget. Hospitals suffer from the rapid lack of investment capital into the buildings, technologies and specialized equipment. This problem is closely related to the insufficient development of innovation and development of highly specialized health care. One of the possible savings of health insurance companies' funds is introducing day surgery option, respectively day surgery, which would be beneficial also for patients. It is also supported by the government's program of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic (MH SR) under the reduction of beds in hospitals and declared highly effective treatment consisting of cured patients for the shortest possible time, without unnecessary pain and stress, but of the highest quality, without unnecessary hospital infections appearance and with as low as possible expenses. Day surgery has its proponents, but also opponents. Positive or negative opinion on its use in Slovakia depends on who is assessing it: health insurance companies are seeking for efficient use of available financial resources in hospitals, but those are permanently in debt [13]. Health insurance companies contribute with significantly reduced payments for services of day surgery against the payments for completed hospitalization. The reason is poorly constructed and economically de-motivating system that significantly lags behind the European average. Health systems need to be assessed comprehensively, since the adoption of measures only in one area may substantially affect the other areas and cause many adverse effects, possibly with the worse implications than before the change itself [14]. To search for alternatives in the process of increasing the efficiency of the health care system in Slovakia it is necessary to launch a broad debate about the whole system [2], [10] and its functionality, to set up the goals, to provide all required and objective analyzes [19], to search for all possible variants of solutions [39], to reach an agreement and particularly to meet the agreed rules by all involved stakeholders in order to meet the targets [31], [20], [24], [38]. There are very few studies based on comparison of traditional hospitalization with performances provided during day surgery [5]. Those that have been realized show no significant differences in the results (e.g. [5], [6], [9], [11], [17]. Their conclusions focus mainly on the safety dimension of day surgery performance, also on the subject in compliance with all recommended instructions and organizational principles of the day surgery program.

1. Day Surgery in Slovak Republic and Abroad

At the present, in Slovakia is day surgery more increasingly considered as a standard planned procedure, it can be advantageous not only for the patient and his family, but also for health care provider. "Day surgery" is defined as a surgery or procedure, when the patient is admitted or released from surgical care on the same day [1]. Stay in the hospital during the night up to 23 hours is termed as "prolonged recovery" [1]. A term "short stay" is used for surgery, where required hospital stay takes more than 23 hours, but no longer than 72 hours [18]. Despite of IAAS efforts to standardize international terminology to facilitate comparisons of surgical data between the countries, there are still the differences. There is no standardized terminology of day surgery procedures, as well as the places of their realization, places and length of recovery after procedures and so on. Development of high quality day surgery care services in European countries is also a priority for their governments in health care field. A recent survey conducted in 19 countries pointed to the significant differences in the percentage of realized procedures of day surgery [34]. Their range varies from less than 10% (e.g., Slovakia and Poland), to the around 80% (such as USA, Canada) [7], [29], [34]. These differences are evident between the countries but also within the countries, between the hospitals in the concrete country, in its departments, as well as between the specialists in the equal hospital. As the most determining factor of stated differences could be indicated the existence of different rules and incentives in different countries, different financial payments for day surgery, doctors resistance (including anesthesiologists) to the changes in the implementation of new procedures and the like (e.g. [21], [30]). IAAS (International Association for ambulatory surgery) recommends also a subsequent benchmarking for day surgery quality assessment based on selected types of indicators, such as cancellation of planned procedures, unplanned admission to the hospital, re-admission to the surgical procedure (ambulatory or hospital), patient satisfaction with the surgery performance and the like.

1.1 Critical Aspects of Day Surgery in Slovak Republic

Previous researches of day surgery use in Slovakia [13], [14] declare the fact that although day surgery is a highly effective instrument for providing health care, it is applied in unstable conditions of Slovak healthcare system. It is a suitable subject for polemics of various representatives of the health care system, as well as the professional and general public, who does not have adequate information. Information also absent on the web pages of individual health insurance companies. Day surgery is carried out under the professional guidance of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic issued in 2006. At that time, about one third of the patients, especially in large public hospitals were hospitalized less than 72 hours.

Foreign studies in the countries, where day surgary system is functioning for more than 30 year ([23], [35], [8], [12], [16] etc.) declare numerous researches in this field, supporting continuous improvement of day surgery system. We can see a problematic aspect of day surgery development in Slovakia in the lack of financial support from health insurance companies, which each year expand the list of day surgery performances, but without mapping the conditions of its appropriateness. In the fifteen years of day surgery existence in Slovakia, there were not done any researches declaring its condition, as well as potential development opportunities. There is not research mapping the riskiness of the selected types of procedures for different age groups of the patients, the cost increase of treatment for patient re-hospitalization after the procedure, the overall benefits of day surgery use compared to the standard hospitalization with the concrete type of diagnosis (cost savings of health insurance company), including the patient's early return to the working process. Problems can also be found in the primary data collection, where in reporting frequencies of day surgery performance based on the guidelines of MH SR we find many inconsistencies and incompatibilities. All critical aspects were the important determinants in our expert evaluation, which was the preparatory phase of the application of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the process of comparison of the two health care systems. Application of AHP is further elaborated in Chapter 2.

1.2 Day Surgery in the Process of Beds Reduction in Health Care System

In connection with the day surgery development is necessary to mention the process of the hospital beds reduction. Reducing the number of hospital beds previously used for inpatient care can be considered from a financial perspective as an important benefit of day surgery. Slovakia is among the OECD countries with the lowest efficiency of health care, while in the number of beds per 1,000 inhabitants is above the average of the OECD [37]. Reduction of the hospital beds was repeatedly planned by previous governments in Slovakia, touching also the hospitals that were not intended to be cancelled. Although, the expected output of rationalization of hospitals in the long run in conjunction with other measures, which should increase the performance management of public resources in the health sector, strives to the increasment of the quality and accessibility of health care for citizens, it can also cause a transitory exacerbation of the access to the health care. As reported by the National Health Information Center (NHIC) statistics, since 2000 is reported a decline trend of the number of hospital beds in all segments (acute, psychiatric as well as beds for long-term patients). Between the years 2000-2007 there was a reduction of beds by 37.3% (in 2000 was their number 42,332 and in 2007 a total of 26,546 beds). Decrease in the number of beds was also reflected in the decline of the number of employed physicians by 13.2% (from 6,143 to 5,334), as well as the reduction of other medical personnel [36], [37]. In 2011, the General Health Insurance Company reduced about 3,000 unnecessary beds and has not contracted about 150 hospital departments, which were often duplicated or ineffective. Despite of the referred rationalization actions, Slovakia remains in ranking among the OECD countries with the lowest efficiency of health care, while in the total number of hospital beds per 1,000 inhabitants is above the average of OECD countries (even in acute beds) [36]. It is apparent from the above that the scope for further hospital rationalization exists, although the process of reduction of beds causes a critical controversy among the experts in the sense, that stated system of saving finances is liquidating for hospitals. After the reduction of beds was expected a lower supply of funds from health insurance companies, which would jeopardize the ability of hospitals to pay their liabilities. Finally, the hospital would get more into the debt, because even at the lower inflow of the finances, they will have to cure the patients.

2. Comparison of Health Care Systems in Hospitals

Day surgery in Slovakia and abroad benefits from the positive results of several studies and medical practice declaring the fact, that the best ongoing treatment and recovery of patients after surgery is at home environment. Modern medicine, as well as ongoing development of operational techniques and related methods of the post-operative care, enables to shorten hospital stay to a minimum and it prompts to return to the normal life [32]. Current educational modalities limit the negative influence of interindividual variability of surgical skills, thus increasing the potential for uncomplicated postoperative course [4]. However, the most standard, uncomplicated surgeries in Slovakia are accompanied by unnecessarily long hospital stay. When evaluating the day surgery efficiency it is necessary to bear in mind that the financial savings occur when the hospitalization surgeries substitute the execution of day surgery performances and bed are reduced. Day surgery efficiency depends on many factors: pricing strategies of health insurance companies, place of day surgery performance, the patient age, comorbidities [33], degree of technical failure of the surgeon, social aspects and so on [3], [8] [15], [16], [35]. The heterogeneity of these factors on the one hand makes the process of day surgery performances significantly difficult to compare with the system of inpatient care. But in the individual components of the functioning of both systems are clear unambiguous criteria that are necessary to ensure the functionality of the process of health care providing. To compare those two systems, we have choosen already mentioned AHP method.

2.1 AHP in the Process of

Comparing Health Care Systems

AHP is a structured technique designed to solve a complex decision. It is based on mathematical procedures and human psychology. Since its first publication in the 70s of the 20th century, it has undergone several improvements and it provides complex and coherent approach to the structuring of the problem, to quantify the elements related to the overall objectives and evaluates an alternative solutions. AHP can be used in various decision-making situations spheres (government, business, industry, health, education).

AHP method is based on the creation and analysis of hierarchical structure of the solving task. By the hierarchical structure of the term we understand to the structure, containing a number of levels, where each of them contains several elements. The arrangement of the different levels of hierarchical structure corresponds with the way of the arrangement from the general to the specific. The more general elements are in relation to that decision-making problem, the higher level of hierarchy they get. The typical simple task of multicriteria option analysis includes the following levels:

* first level--objective evaluation, which could be the arrangement of variants,

* second level--evaluation criteria,

* third level--assessed variants.

When quantifying relations in the hierarchy, it usually progresses from the top to the bottom. The method of quantitative pair comparison by Saaty is used; it is based on the importance of comparing all pairs of elements evaluation [25], [26], [28]. The output of AHP is important for the evaluation of criteria, therefore it is very important to pay attention to the procedures which helps to determine weights of the criteria responsibly and exactly. For decision making are also important experiences, it helps to sort out evaluation criteria for monitoring so-called informative signs, which provide largest volume of real information for deciding. Decisions made on the base of the best decision-making method may not be correct; if the input data in preparation phase are not perfectly managed and sufficient quality information are missinf. In the first phase, before applying the method of evaluating, the evaluating entity has to define all criteria and sub-criteria under which the evaluation will take place. Selection of individual criteria and sub-criteria is carried out on the basis of current knowledge and experiences of each evaluating entity. If it is a very first evaluation of some entity, the criteria must be sorted out more or less according to its own intuition, respectively according to some evaluating subject template, or according to the tasks that is the subject of decision making.

2.1.1 The Structure of the AHP Method

Method of AHP is a flexible model for decision making, clarifying issues that have several possible solutions. AHP is carried out by an expert method and then by a mathematical method, which divides main problem into the smaller and more detailed elements. Decision making by the method of AHP can be divided into three different levels [25]: 1) hierarchy, 2) priorities, 3) consistency.

Hierarchy--decomposition of the properties into homogeneous clusters and then further dividing into smaller units, we can gradually integrate a large amount of information into hierarchical structure, creating a more complete picture of the system. Hierarchy on Figure 1 represents a problem of multicriteria decision making.

Setting priorities--to determine the intensities of the impact effect of various components on the system as a whole, we need to transfer a certain types of measurement. AHP allows comparing and measuring the intangible qualitative factors (e.g. social, political, etc.). In absolute comparisons are compared the alternatives with the established standard, which was developed on the basis of past experiences. In relative comparisons are alternatives compared in pairs usually through the commonly used evaluation terms (e.g. worse, better, etc.). AHP uses for both types of comparisons, cardinal scales are stated in Table 1.

Information about the significance of the criteria obtained on the base of the paired comparison can be determined as the values [s.sub.ij], which indicates the ratio of the significance of the evaluation criteria [k.sub.i] to criterion [k.sub.j], where i,j = 1,2, ...,n. It is required that sij meets for all i, j = 1,2, ... n, where n is the number of evaluation criteria, under the following conditions [25]:

[s.sub.ij] > 0, [s.sub.ij] = [s.sub.ji.sup.-1], [s.sub.ii] = 1 (1)

Variables [s.sub.ij], relative significance of criteria have to be arranged in a square matrix of relative significance S.


Consistency - in determining the relations between the objects, the coherence have to be achieved, i.e. consistency of mutual relations. This coherence is achieved by homogeneity (relevancy) manifested in homogeneous clustering of the objects according to given criteria, as well as consistency of intensity of relations between the objects according to different criteria. The alternatives of decision are sorted out in order of evaluation [27].

As reported by Saaty and Joyce [26], when using AHP method for decision making, four axioms have to be met:

* Inverse axiom: if an alternative A is n-times preferred to B, then B alternative is 1/ntimes preferred to A. It is a rule of reciprocity expressed by the formula:

[S.sub.ij] = 1/ [S.sub.ji], (3)

* Homogeneous axiom: comparison using pairing is significant only if the elements are comparable.

* Dependent axiom: comparison at a lowest level (sub-criterion) depends on the element at a higher level (the higher criterion), the rule of transitivity.

* Consequential axiom: if any criterion in the hierarchy will be changed, new re-valuation for the new hierarchy is expected.

In practical application of method AHP, the elements of decision matrix, are very often not consistent. So there is needed to calculate inconsistency index, expressed by the formula [25]:

IS = [[lambda].sub.max] - n/ n - 1 (4)

where [[lambda].sub.max] is the biggest eigenvalue of matrix S and n is its dimension. If [l.sub.s] = 0, than the matrix is consistent.

The higher the values of inconsistency index ([l.sub.s]) acquires, the more inconsistent are the pairwise comparisons in the matrix of paired comparisons. In case of higher inconsistency Saaty recommends, that expert should reconsider its assessment of criteria and modify the matrix of relative significances S, to increase its consistency [27]. On the contrary, the closer to zero is the value [l.sub.s], the greater is the consistency of the pairwise comparisons in matrix. In practical application Saaty recom mends to accept the value of inconsistency index lower than 0.1, as it was applied in our calculations.

2.2 Practical Application of AHP Determination of Criteria and Sub-Criteria

The subjects of our analysis are healthcare systems, namely day surgery and inpatient (traditional) health care. Heterogeneity of those health care systems makes it significantly difficult to compare them in the hospitals. Determination of criteria and sub-criteria of both health care systems was carried out by the expert evaluation, 16 experts participated (3 were the members of the Slovak Association of Day Surgery, 4 health insurance companies representatives, 4 representative of the Association of Hospitals in Slovakia (AHP), 4 health care were providers with real experience with day surgery performance and 1 representative was from the university sphere). At the beginning of this process, experts have identified a set of criteria; there was no exact evaluation of individual elements between them. We obtained a list of the components of health care systems, which are not mutually valued between them, so in this time they had the same weight. Based on the expert evaluation, the following basic criteria were specified: strategic focus, system stability, measurability, causality, coherence with funding sources, system sustainability and feedback, and self-evaluation of the health care system (Table 2). These criteria were also the basic principles of health care (day surgery and in-patient care) and a platform for subsequent expert evaluation of the AHP. Adherence with those principles in the analyzed systems is conditional for achieving the expected benefits from them. These principles are based on the fundamental principles of the both, health care systems functioning, from their comparative aspects, as well as from the results of the own research activities [13], [14], The above stated principles represent the evaluation criteria, to which the group of experts from our research subsequently established a set of so-called sub-criteria (Table 2).

Listed criteria are relatively widely understood. For this reason, it is necessary that in the process of defining the criteria, the experts should break down those criteria into sub-criteria to the level where it is necessary. The level of the segmentation is unlimited. In this case, we have chosen to break down the criteria only to one lower level, to the sub-criteria. In practice it is possible that these sub-criteria will be subdivided to other sub-sub-criteria. For the second level of subcriteria were based on expert estimation of the expert group set the items shown in Table 3 From the table is also clear the competence of the various sub-criteria to the main criteria.

In the first round of the expert evaluation were defined criteria and sub-criteria. Subsequently, the experts were provided with the lists of criteria and sub-criteria in order to assess their importance. The experts could assign a degree of importance to criteria and sub-criteria from 1 (absolutely important) to the level 9 (totally unimportant). Experts were given a table of criteria and sub-criteria and then using the modal criterion, the importance of each criterion was evaluated. Results are stated in the following Table 4.

Consequently, using these links between those criteria and sub-criteria we determined the elements of matrix. Value matrix S is defined precisely on the basis of mutual comparison of the criterion importance, respectively associated sub-criteria. E.g. when criterion K1 is as important as criterion K2, the value of mutual evaluation of these criterions in matrix S is 1. Criterion K1 is one level upper than criterion K4. So in a row K1 and a column K4 is number 2. In a row K4 and a column K1 is reverse value of 2, so 0.5, as K4 is one level lower than K1. Analogically we can evaluate pairs of criterions. Thus, we can define the values as relative differences of importance. When creating a matrix, it is important to preserve the rule of transitivity. In our case, attribute K1 is one degree more important than attribute K4 ([s.sub.14] = 2) and attribute K4 which is one degree more important than K7 ([s.sub.47] = 2). Based on the transitivity rule it must apply, that an attribute K1 is 2 degrees more important than attribute K7 ([s.sub.17] = 3).

It can also be exactly written. Let k represents an evaluation of the importance of i-th criterion/ /sub-criteria. Mutual evaluation of the importance of the two criteria/sub-criteria then can be defined as [s.sub.ij], as criterion i is more important than criterion j which is stated by the formula:

[s.sub.ij] = [k.sub.j] - [k.sub.i] + 1 if [k.sub.i] < [k.sub.j], (5)

[s.sub.ij] = 1/([k.sub.i] - [k.sub.j] + 1) when [k.sub.i] > [k.sub.j]. (6)

Weights are stated as:

[W.sub.i] = [m.summation over (j=1)][S.sub.ij]/ [m.summation over (i=1)] [m.summation over (j=1)][S.sub.ij]

where m is an index of a superior main criterion.

Results are written in table 5 and table 6.

Since not all individual elements of matrices are consistent, we calculated the indexes of inconsistency. Calculation was carried out by using of the program tool MS Excel and acquired results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 shows that pairwise comparisons of criteria and sub-criteria are sufficiently consistent, because all indexes of inconsistency are in absolute value smaller than 0.1. Our suggested criteria and sub-criteria rated by experts are thus suitable for evaluating by using AHP method.

2.3 Evaluation of Variants (Standardized and NonStandardized Evaluation)

In the second part of the implementation of the expert evaluation we conducted individual evaluation of both variants, namely day surgery system and hospitalization system of health care. Experts on such matters evaluated both variants separately for each sub-criterion. While using rating scales from 0 to 5, where 5 represents the best value (most appropriate option) and the worst value of 0 (worst possible option). Individual variants were evaluated by non-standardized and by standardized method. When using standardized method, the figures obtained from experts were divided into the intervals. Respecting the recommendation of paper [27], we divided the interval <0, 5> into 8 equal intervals, which are characterized in Table 8.

Concrete values, which were obtained from the experts and then transformed into the intervals, according to Table 8 are shown in Table 9.

The classifications from Table 9 were used for creating two-dimensional Saaty matrices for both systems and for each sub-criterion separately. We proceeded Table 10 and results were overwritten into the Table 11.

Final evaluation of the variant A is computed using the following relation:

[X.sub.A] = [m.summation over (i=1)] ([W.sub.i] x [n.summation over (j=1)] [W.sub.ij] x [W.sub.ijA]), (8)

the variant B using the relation:

[X.sub.B] = [m.summation over (i=1)] ([W.sub.i] x [n.summation over (j=1)] [W.sub.ij] x [W.sub.ijB]), (9)

where m is an index of a superior main criterion, n is an index of sub-criterion within a main criterion.

While wi are weights of criteria from Table 5, [w.sub.ij] are weights of sub-criteria from Table 6 and values [w.sub.ijA] resp. [w.sub.ijB] are weights of Saaty matrices from Table 11. Final values are shown in the Table 12.

In the prior evaluation we used a range, where the smallest value represented the worst alternative and the highest value represented the best alternative. Therefore, in the overall assessment we conclude that higher variant rating is, the better is given option to the compared variant. In both cases, alternative A was better than alternative B.

Based on the results from the application of AHP in comparison with functionality of health care systems we conclude higher efficiency of day surgery system. Day surgery is the area where we see a clear possibility of savings not only in the health care system, but also in national economic context. From an economic perspective, this area provides opportunities to reduce operating costs of hospitals and thus the required payments by the health insurance companies, but it also may have a positive impact on the area of health insurance, which would reflect in a more rapid re-engagement of the patient to the labor force. Mentioned analysis should be supported by the other complementary analyses, necessary for the development of day surgery in Slovakia. This is a call for an active participation of the Ministry of Health of the Slovak Republic, as well as the National Health Information Center, who are currently participating in our analyses of health care systems. The analysis can help to improve processes within the reporting system in Slovakia, as well as in decisionmaking processes in our healthcare system.


In the constantly proclaimed transformation of public health insurance system, identifying the gaps in the process of increasing efficiency and optimizing treatment and related economic processes in health facilities. The issue of day surgery is more in the center of attention from the reason of financing healthcare and it is a subject of constant negotiations at different levels of the health system in Slovakia. So far, the issue of deployment and use of day surgery in Slovakia, as one of the highly effective options to increase the financial savings in the health care system, has not been addressed comprehensively in Slovakia, but also in the V4 countries. Therefore it highlights the uniqueness of this issue, as well as the possibility of implementing knowledge to optimize medical processes and increases the efficiency of the health care system. If we want to implement the recommendations of reputable international institutions in Slovakia (e.g. OECD recommendation on reducing conventional hospital beds), it is necessary to support every State decision by the large-scale multi-dimensional analyses. Only such approach in the decisionmaking process will help to avoid reducing the quality and accessibility of health care, consistently protect the consumers of health services and ultimately increase the prestige of the Slovak Republic for the more rationally behaving external environment. For achievement of all above stated, it is necessary to have a quality national and international registries that would provide all necessary information for the analyses of effective deployment and use of day surgery, comparable with foreign countries. International institutions such as the OECD, Eurostat, WHO declare also the significant methodological problems in the reporting of surgical procedures in each country and they encourage the cooperation to eliminate them [22]. Slovakia still records very low quotient of day surgery procedures of the total number of surgical procedures, while abroad is significant evidence of its progress. Our analysis confirmed the higher functionality of the day surgery system in comparison with traditional hospitalization health care. For a further complementary analysis of effectivity, not only focused on day surgery, it is necessary to access to the deeper and more structured data. It is required to increase an information discipline of health care providers, cooperation with national register and strengthen the legislative support (participation of Ministry of Health in SR). Without the analyzing of day surgery level of functionality, efficiency, specification of its determinants, detection of day surgery weaknesses and taking actions for their elimination, the future progress in setting up and using of day surgery is not possible.

This research paper is made possible through the support from VEGA Project No. 1/0929/14 ,,Multidimensional economic and financial evaluation of the implementation process and the use of one day health care and quantification of the financial impact on the health system in the Slovak Republic".


[1] BADS. BADS directory of procedures [online]. London: British Association of Day Surgery, c2009 [cit. 2012-07-08]. Available from:

[2] BARTAK, M. Ekonomika zdravf Socialnf, ekonomicke a pravnf aspekty pece o zdravf. 1. vyd. Praha: Wolters Kluver CR, 2010. 224 p. ISBN 978-80-7357-503-8.

[3] BERGLAND, A., GISLASON, H., RAEDER, J. Fast-track surgery for bariatric laparoscopic gastric bypass with focus on anaesthesia and perioperative care. Experience with 500 cases. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2008, Vol. 52, Iss. 10, pp. 1394-1399. ISSN 1399-6576.

[4] BUZINK, S., SOLTES, M., RADONAK, J., et al. Laparoscopic Surgical Skills Programme: Preliminary Evaluation of Grade I Level 1 Courses by Trainees. Videosurgery and other Miniinvasive Techniques. 2012, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 188-192. ISSN 1895-4588.

[5] CASTORO, C., BERTINATO, L., BACCAGLINI, U., et al. With the collaboration of IAAS Executive Committee Members. Policy Brief. Day surgery: making it happen. WHO European Centre for Health Policy 2007.

[6] CORVERA, G., GESPEDES, B., YSUNZA, A. et. al. Ambulatory vs. in-patient stapedectomy: a randomized twenty-patient pilot study. Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 1996, Vol. 114, No. 3, pp. 355-359. ISSN 0194-5998.

[7] CULLEN, K.A., HALL, M.J., GOLOSINSKIY, A. Ambulatory Surgery in the United States, 2006. National health statistics reports. 2009-01-28, no 11. Revised. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009. 28 p. Available also from:

[8] DEDIVITIS, R.A., PFUETZENREITER, E.G., CASTRO, M.A.F., DENARDIN, O.V.P. Analysis of safety of short-stay thyroid surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica. 2009, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 326-330. ISSN 0392-100X.

[9] DIRKSEN, C.D., SMITZ, R.F., HANS, K.M. et al. Ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy is as effective as hospitalization and from a social perspective less expensive: a randomized study. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde. 2001, Vol. 145, No. 50, pp. 2434-2439. ISSN 0028-2162.

[10] DLOUHY, M., BARTAK, M. Mental Health Financing in Six Eastern European Countries. E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2013, Vol. 16, Iss. 4, pp. 4-13. ISSN 1212-3609.

[11] FEDOROWICZ, Z., LAWRENCE, D., GUTIERREZ, P. Daycare versus inpatient surgery for agerelated cataract. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005. Art. No. CD004242.

[12] FLEISHER, L.A., PASTERNAK, L.R., HERBERT, R., ANDERSON, G.F. Inpatient hospital admission and death after outpatient surgery in elderly patients: importance of patient and system characteristics and location of care. Archives of Surgery. 2004, Vol. 139, Iss. 1, pp. 67-72. ISSN 0004-0010.

[13] GAVUROVA, B., SOLTBS, V. Efektfvnosf slovenskeho zdravotnfctva - analyza komparacnych aspektov a identifikacia rozvojovych moznostf. 1. vyd. Kosice: TU, 2013. 116 p. ISBN 978-80-553-1451-8.

[14] GAVUROVA, B., SOLTBS, V., KAFKOVA, K., CERNY, 11. Vybrane aspekty efektfvnosti slovenskeho zdravotnfctva. Jednodnova zdravotna starostlivosf a jej rozvoj v podmienkach Slovenskej republiky. Kosice: Technicka univerzita, 2013. 275 p. ISBN 978-80-553-1438-9.

[15] GURUSAMY, K., JUNNARKAR, S., FAROUK, M., DAVIDSON, B.R. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy. British Journal of Surgery. 2008, Vol. 95, Iss. 2, pp. 161-168. ISSN 1365-2168.

[16] HOFER, R.E., KAI, T., DECKER, P.A., WARNER, D.O. Obesity as a risk factor for unanticipated admissions after ambulatory surgery. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2008, Vol. 83, Iss. 8, pp. 908-916. ISSN 0025-6196.

[17] HOLLINGTON, P, TOOGOOD, G.J., PADBURY, R.T. A prospective randomized trial of day-stay only versus overnight-stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery. 1999, Vol. 69, Iss. 12, pp. 841843. ISSN 0004-8682.

[18] IAAS. Clinical indicators for ambulatory surgery [online]. International Association for Ambulatory Surgery, 2003 [cit. 2010-05-15]. Available from:

[19] JANKE, F., PRIDAVOK, M. B2B network performance: practical aspects of network supply adequacy indicator. In: DOUCEK, P, CHROUST, G., OSKRDAL, V. (eds.). IDIMT-2012: ICTSupport for Complex Systems: 20th Interdisciplinary Information Management Talks: Sept. 12-14, 2012, Jindrichuv Hradec, Ceska republika. Linz: Trauner Verlag, 2012. pp. 337-346. ISBN 978-399033-022-7.

[20] JANKE, F., PACKOVA, M. Impact of ICT investments on performance of companies in transitioneconomies: Evidence from Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Quality Innovation Prosperity. 2013, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 9-21. ISSN 1335-1745.

[21] JARRETT, P, STANISZEWSKI, A. The development of ambulatory surgery and future challenges. In: LEMOS, P., JARRETT, P., PHILIP, B. (eds.). Day Surgery Development and Practice. London: International Association for Ambulatory Surgery (IAAS) 2006, pp. 21-34. ISBN 978-98920-0234-7.

[22] LAFORTUNE, G., BALESTAT, G., DURAND, A. Comparing activities and performance of the hospital sector in Europe: how many surgical procedures performed as inpatient and day cases? OECD Health Division, Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2012. 80 p. Available also from: health/Comparing-activities-and-performance-ofthe-hospital-sector-in-Europe_Inpatient-and-day- cases-surgical- procedures.pdf.

[23] MATTILA, K. Day Surgery in Finland. Randomized and cross-sectional studies on treatment, quality, and outcome. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Helsinki, 2010. ISBN 978-952-92-7350-8.

[24] PAVLIKOVA, L, SINICAKOVA, M. Labor Market Indicators and Their Causalities: the Case of the New European Union Member States. In Procedia Economics and Finance: Emerging Markets Queries in Finance and Business: EMFB 2012: 24.27 October 2012. TTrgu-Mure[section], Romania, Vol. 3, pp. 1229-1237. ISSN 2212-5671.

[25] RAMfK, J. Analyticky hierarchicky proces (AHP) a jeho vyuzitf v malem a strednfm podnikanf. Slezska univerzita v Opave. Obchodne podnikatelska fakulta v Karvine, 2000. 217 s. ISBN 80-7248-088-X.

[26] SAATY, T.L., JOYCE, A.M. Thinking with models. 1st ed. Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1981. 181 p. ISBN 0-08-026475-1.

[27] SAATY, T.L. Multicriteria decision making - the analytic hierarchy process. Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. 2nd ed. RWS Publ, 1990. 287 p. ISBN 978-0962031724.

[28] SAATY, T.L., KEAMS, K.P. Analytical Planning. 1st ed. Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1985. 208 p. ISBN 0-08-032599-8.

[29] SEGERDAHL, M., WARREN-STOMBERG, M., RAWAL, N., BRATTWALL, M., JAKOBSSON, J. Clinical practice and routines for day surgery in Sweden: results from a nation-wide survey. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. 2008, Vol. 52, Iss. 1, pp. 117-124. ISSN 1399-6576.

[30] SMITH, I., McWHINNIE, D., JACKSON, I. Day Case Surgery. British Association of Day Surgery. Oxford Specialist Handbooks, 2012. ISBN 978-0-19-958433-8.

[31] SZABO, Z.K., SOLTES, M., HERMAN, E. Innovative Capacity and Performance of Transition Economies: Comparative Study at the Level of Enterprises. E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2013, Vol. 16, Iss. 1, pp. 52-68. ISSN 1212-3609.

[32] SOLTES, M., PAZINKA, P, RADONAK, J. Laparoskopicka hernioplastika TAPP v liecbe slabinovej prietrze - 10-rocne skusenosti. Rozhledy v chirurgii. 2010, Vol. 89, No. 6, pp. 384389. ISSN 0035-9351.

[33] SOLTES, M., PAZINKA, P, RADONAK, J. Termicke lezie v laparoskopickej chirurgii. Endoskopie. 2011, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 14-16. ISSN 1211-1074.

[34] TOFTGAARD, C., PARMENTIER, G. International terminology in ambulatory surgery and its worldwide practice. In: LEMOS, P., JARRETT, P., PHILIP, B. (Eds.). Day Surgery Development and Practice. London: International Association for Ambulatory Surgery (IAAS) 2006, pp. 35-59. ISBN 978-989-20-0234-7.

[35] WASOWICZ-KEMPS, D.K. Trends in day surgery in the Netherlands.Thesis, university of Utrecht, with summary in Dutch. Enschede: Gildeprint B.V., 2008. ISBN 9789071382314.

[36] ZACHAR, D. O planovanej d'alsej redukcii lozok v nemocniciach [online]. Bratislava: INEKO, i-Health, c2013 [cit. 2013-07-08]. Available from: kcii-lozok-v-nemocniciach.

[37] ZACHAR, D. O rozpoctovanych prostriedkoch pre zdravotnfctvo v roku 2013 a o vyske platieb statu za svojich poistencov [online]. Bratislava: INEKO, i-Health, c2013 [cit. 27.08.2013] Available from: o-rozpoctovanychprostriedkoch-pre-zdravotnictvo-v-roku-2013-a-o-vyske-platieb-statu-za- s vojich poistencov.

[38] ZAVADSKA, Z., ZAVADSKY, J., SIROTIAKOVA, M. Process model and its real application in the selected management areas. E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2013, Vol. 16, Iss. 1, pp. 113-127. ISSN 1212-3609.

[39] ZIZKA, M. Services in the Context of Entrepreneurial Environment of the Czech Republic. E+M Ekonomie a Management. 2012, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 97-109. ISSN 1212-3609.

prof. RNDr. Vincent Soltes, CSc.

Technical University of Kosice

Faculty of Economics

doc. Ing. Beata Gavurova, PhD. MBA

Technical University of Kosice

Faculty of Economics

Tab. 1: Basic scales for pair comparison

Evaluation   Comparison of        Explanation
degree       elements x
             and y

1            x is as              Both elements
               important as y       contribute
                                    equally to the
2            x is less            The first
               important as y       element is
                                    slightly more
                                    important than
                                    the other
3            x is slightly        Experiences and
               important than y     assuming
                                    slightly prefer
                                    the first
                                    element before
                                    the second
4            x is slightly        Slightly
               more important       stronger
               than y               preference than
                                    the previous
5            x is strongly        Strong
               more important       preference of
               than y               the first
                                    element before
                                    the second
6            x is much more       Slightly
               strongly             stronger
               important than y     preference than
                                    the previous
7            x is very            Very strong
               strongly             preference of
               important than y     the first
                                    element before
                                    the second
8            x is very, very      Slightly
               strongly more        stronger
               important than y     preference than
                                    the previous
9            x is extremely       The facts that
               more important       prefer the
               than y               first element
                                    over the second
                                    one have the

Source: [25]

Tab. 2: Set of health care systems functionality criteria based
on expert evaluation

Criterion   Criterion title

K1          Strategic
              objective of
              health care
K2          Stability of
              health care
K3          Measurability
K4          Causality
K5          Coherence with
              funding sources
K6          Continuity,
              and feedback
K7          Self-evaluation
              of health care

Source: own

Tab. 3: Set of health care systems functionality sub-criteria
based of expert evaluation (part 1)

Sub-criterion   Sub-criterion title

S1.1            Implementation of the
                  consistent strategic analysis
                  and assessment of the
                  appropriateness of the health
                  care system for current
                  conditions in the Slovak
S1.2            Consensus on a vision and/or
                  mission and/or critical
                  success factors
S1.3            Regular analysis and
                  assessment of the overall
                  strategic performance of the
S1.4            Revising the existing
                  strategic areas and the
                  possibility of accepting other
                  potential strategic areas
S1.5            Support of the major
                  decision-making organization
                  managements (MZ SR, health
                  insurance companies, The
                  Healthcare Surveillance
                  Authority, AHS) when using
                  health care system and their
                  participation on the relevant
                  results of the health care
S2.1            Regular redefinition of the
                  objectives and actions within
                  the health care system
S2.2            Defined objectives reflect the
                  equilibrium view on the
                  strategy for hospital
S2.3            Defined strategic actions
                  reflect the equilibrium view
                  on the strategy of the
S2.4            Regular analysis and
                  evaluation of the balance
                  between existing strategic
S3.1            To the strategic objective are
                  assigned appropriately chosen
                  strategic measure methods of
                  the values measuring
S3.2            To the strategic measures are
                  assigned their target values
                  and critical values
S3.3            Specified conditions and terms
                  of regular quantification of
                  the measures
S3.4            Regular analysis and
                  evaluation of existing
                  measures, target and critical
                  values, measures and choice of
                  other potential target and
                  critical value of measures
S4.1            Causal relationships are
                  defined between the strategic
S4.2            Causal relationships are
                  defined between the strategic
S4.3            Causal relationships are
                  defined between the measures
S4.4            Causal relations are defined
                  between the targeted and
                  critical values of strategic
S5.1            Defined strategy and
                  subsequent planes are linked
                  to the state budget of SR
S5.2            Hospital sources are within
                  the system of day surgery
                  aligned with strategic
                  actions, respectively
                  strategic initiatives
S5.3            Non-strategic investments,
                  respectively non-strategic
                  activities were selected and
                  eliminated by introduction of
                  new forms of healthcare
S5.4            Results of analyzes affect the
                  review of the strategy, i.e.
                  strategic objectives and
S5.5            Regularly are analyzed and
                  evaluated links to the sources
                  of hospitals to the strategic
                  activities identified in the
                  health care system
S5.6            Based on the results of
                  analysis and revisions of the
                  strategic assumptions, if
                  necessary, we revise existing
                  links of budget and strategy
                  of day surgery system
S6.1            Project to establish health
                  care system was planned in
                  detail from the
                  methodological, technical and
                  organizational perspective
S6.2            The introduction of the health
                  care system had the full
                  support and participation from
                  the side of superior units and
                  relevant organizations s
S6.3            For day surgery functioning
                  was chosen and implemented an
                  appropriate information system
S6.4            Extending health care system
                  within the hospital was
                  managed and controlled process
S6.5            Leadership of organizations
                  supports the use of the health
                  care system and participates
                  in the relevant results
S6.6            Continuous operation of the
                  health care system and regular
                  reporting is ensured
S7.1            For the introduction of the
                  health care system was
                  elaborated cost analysis
                  and/or analysis of risk and
S7.2            Conditions and rules for the
                  regular evaluation of the
                  health care system in terms of
                  benefits, risks, and
                  cost-effectiveness were
S7.3            The health care system is
                  regularly analyzed and
                  evaluated--its benefits,
                  costs, gaps, risks and so on.
S7.4            In case of revising conditions
                  and rules of functionality and
                  their use of health care
                  system, an effort for
                  continuous improvement is

Source: own

Tab. 4: Ranking of criteria and sub-criteria specified by expert

Table of ranking criteria and sub-criteria in order of importance

Criteria and            Sub-criteria   Sub-criteria   Sub-criteria
sub-criteria                S1.X           S2.X           S3.X

Criteria    K1, K2,     S1.1, S1.2,    S2.1, S2.2,    S3.1, S3.2,
            K3, K4,     S1.3, S1.4,     S2.3, S2.4     S3.3, S3.4
           K5, K6, K7       S1.5

Table of ranking criteria and sub-criteria in
order of importance

Criteria and            Sub-criteria   Sub-criteria
sub-criteria                S4.X           S5.X

Criteria    K1, K2,     S4.1, S4.2,    S5.1, S5.2,
            K3, K4,      S4.3, S4.4    S5.3, S5.4,
           K5, K6, K7                   S5.5, S5.6

Table of ranking criteria and sub-criteria in order
of importance

Criteria and            Sub-criteria   Sub-criteria
sub-criteria                S6.X           S7.X

Criteria    K1, K2,     S6.1, S6.2,    S7.1, S7.2,
            K3, K4,     S6.3, S6.4,     S7.3, S7.4
           K5, K6, K7    S6.5, S6.6

Degree of           Assigned            Assigned sub-criteria
importance          criteria

1. Absolutely

2. Very strongly   S1.1, K1,       S1.2.      S2.4.
important            K2, K3

3. Strongly        K4, K5, K6   S2.2, S1.5    S2.3

4. Important           K7       51.3, 51.4.   S2.1       S3.4.
5. Weakly                                             S3.1, S3.3.

6. Not important                                         S3.2.

7. Strongly

8. Very strongly

9. Absolutely

Degree of                          Assigned sub-criteria

1. Absolutely

2. Very strongly   S4.1, S4.2,   S5.1, S5.2,   S6.3, S6.4,   S7.1
important             S4.4.      S5.4, S5.5.      S6.6.

3. Strongly        S5.3, S4.3.   S6.2, S5.6.   S7.2, S6.5.   S7.4.

4. Important                                      S6.1.      S7.3.
5. Weakly

6. Not important

7. Strongly

8. Very strongly

9. Absolutely

Tab. 5: Matrix S for basic criteria

      K1     K2     K3    K4     K5    K6    K7   Weights

K1    1      1      1      2     2      2    3    0.2034
K2    1      1      1      2     2      2    3    0.2034
K3    1      1      1      2     2      2    3    0.2034
K4   0.5    0.5    0.5     1     1      1    2    0.1102
K5   0.5    0.5    0.5     1     1      1    2    0.1102
K6   0.5    0.5    0.5     1     1      1    2    0.1102
K7   0.33   0.33   0.33   0.5   0.50   0.5   1    0.0593

Source: own

Tab. 6: Matrices S for individual sub-criteria

S1.X   S1.1   S1.2   S1.3   S1.4    S1.5     Weights

S1.1    1      1      3      3        2      0.3409
S1.2    1      1      2      2        1      0.2386
S1.3   0.33   0.33    1      1       0.5      0.108
S1.4   0.33   0.33    1      1       0.5      0.108
S1.5   0.5    0.5     2      2        1      0.2045

S2.X   S2.1   S2.2   S2.3   S2.4   Weights

S2.1    1     0.5    0.5    0.3    0.1205
S2.2    2      1      1     0.5    0.2328
S2.3    2      1      1     0.5    0.2328
S2.4    3      2      2      1     0.4139

S3.X   S3.1   S3.2   S3.3   S3.4   Weights

S3.1    1      2      1     0.5    0.2328
S3.2   0.5     1     0.5    0.33   0.1207
S3.3    1      2      1     0.5    0.2328
S3.4    2      3      2      1     0.4138

S4.X   S4.1   S4.2   S4.3   S4.4   Weights

S4.1    1      1      2      1     0.2857
S4.2    1      1      2      1     0.2857
S4.3   0.5    0.5     1     0.5    0.1429
S4.4    1      1      2      1     0.2857

S5.X   S5.1   S5.2   S5.3   S5.4    S5.5      S5.6     Weights

S5.1    1      1      2      1        1         2        0.2
S5.2    1      1      2      1        1         2        0.2
S5.3   0.5    0.5     1     0.5      0.5        1        0.1
S5.4    1      1      2      1        1         2        0.2
S5.5    1      1      2      1        1         2        0.2
S5.6   0.5    0.5     1     0.5      0.5        1        0.1

S6.X   S6.1   S6.2   S6.3   S6.4    S6.5      S6.6     Weights

S6.1    1     0.5    0.3    0.33     0.5      0.33      0.068
S6.2    2      1     0.5    0.5       1        0.5      0.125
S6.3    3      2      1      1        2         1      0.2273
S6.4    3      2      1      1        2         1      0.2273
S6.5    2      1     0.5    0.5       1        0.5      0.125
S6.6    3      2      1      1        2         1      0.2273

S7.X   S7.1   S7.2   S7.3   S7.4   Weights

S7.1    1      2      3      2     0.4138
S7.2   0.5     1      2      1     0.2328
S7.3   0.33   0.5     1     0.5    0.1207
S7.4   0.5     1      2      1     0.2328

Source: own

Tab. 7: Inconsistency index of main criterions and sub-criterions

[I.sub.K]   [I.sub.s1]   [I.sub.s2]   [I.sub.s3]   [I.sub.s4]

0.001731     -0.06141     -0.00626     0.00249         0

[I.sub.K]   [I.sub.s5]   [I.sub.s6]   [I.sub.s7]

0.001731        0         -0.00166     0.00249

Source: own

Tab. 8: Intervals of standardized evaluation of alternatives

Points    1.      2.      3.      4.

From       0     0.625   1.25    1.875
To       0.625   1.25    1.875    2.5

Points    5.      6.      7.      8.

From      2.5    3.125   3.75    4.375
To       3.125   3.75    4.375     5

Source: own

Tab. 9: The sub-criteria values and their classification into

            [X.sub.ij]   Interval

S1.1   A    2.4          4.interval
       B    2.4          4.interval
S1.2   A    2.5          4.interval
       B    2.3          4.interval
S1.3   A    2.8          5.interval
       B    2.1          4.interval
S1.4   A    2.5          4.interval
       B    2.7          5.interval
S1.5   A    2.8          5.interval
       B    2.7          5.interval
S2.1   A    2.9          5.interval
       B    2.9          5.interval
S2.2   A    3.1          5.interval
       B    3            5.interval
S2.3   A    3.2          6.interval
       B    3            5.interval
S2.4   A    3.3          6.interval
       B    3.1          5.interval
S3.1   A    3.1          5.interval
       B    3            5.interval
S3.2   A    2.9          5.interval
       B    2.9          5.interval
S3.3   A    2            4.interval
       B    2.3          4.interval
S3.4   A    2.3          4.interval
       B    2.2          4.interval
S4.1   A    3.8          7.interval
       B    3.6          6.interval
S4.2   A    3.1          5.interval
       B    3            5.interval
S4.3   A    3.2          6.interval
       B    3.1          5.interval
S4.4   A    3.1          5.interval
       B    3.5          6.interval
S5.1   A    2.8          5.interval
       B    2.2          4.interval
S5.2   A    3.2          5.interval
       B    3            5.interval
S5.3   A    3            5.interval
       B    2.9          5.interval
S5.4   A    2.7          5.interval
       B    2.8          5.interval
S5.5   A    2.5          4.interval
       B    2.3          4.interval
S5.6   A    2.3          4.interval
       B    2.2          4.interval
S6.1   A    2.5          4.interval
       B    2.7          5.interval
S6.2   A    2.6          5.interval
       B    2.8          5.interval
S6.3   A    2.8          5.interval
       B    2.7          5.interval
       A    2.7          5.interval
       B    2.9          5.interval
       A    3            5.interval
00.0   B    3.2          6.interval
S6.6   A    2.8          5.interval
       B    2.4          4.interval
S7.1   A    2.9          5.interval
       B    2.3          4.interval
S7.2   A    3.1          5.interval
       B    3.4          6.interval
S7.3   A    3.2          6.interval
       B    3.1          5.interval
S7.4   A    2.7          5.interval
       B    3            5.interval

Source: own

Tab. 10: Process of the construction of Saaty matrices

If the values [x.sub.A] and            1; 1
  [x.sub.B] are equal
If the values [x.sub.A] and           1/2; 2
  [x.sub.B] are unequal, but in
  the same interval
If the values [x.sub.A] and           1/3; 3
  [x.sub.B] are in adjacent
If the values [x.sub.A] and           1/4; 4
  [x.sub.B] are in interval,
  among which is 1 different
If the values [x.sub.A] and        1/(n+3); n+3
  [x.sub.B] in intervals, among
  which is n intervals (maximum
  6 intervals)

Source: [27]

Tab. 11: Saaty matrices for both systems and sub-criteria

S1.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        1      [W.sub.11A]   0.5000
B        1        1      [W.sub.11B]   0.5000

S1.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.12A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.12B]   0.3333

S1.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.13A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.13B]   0.2500

S1.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1      0.3333   [W.sub.14A]   0.2500
B        3        1      [W.sub.14B]   0.7500

S1.5     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.15A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.15B]   0.3333

S2.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        1      [W.sub.21A]   0.5000
B        1        1      [W.sub.21B]   0.5000

S2.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.22A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.22B]   0.3333

S2.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.23A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.23B]   0.2500

S2.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.24A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.24B]   0.2500

S3.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.31A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.31B]   0.3333

S3.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        1      [W.sub.32A]   0.5000
B        1        1      [W.sub.32B]   0.5000

S3.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.5     [W.sub.33A]   0.3333
B        2        1      [W.sub.33B]   0.6667

S3.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.34A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.34B]   0.3333

S4.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.41A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.41B]   0.2500

S4.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.42A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.42B]   0.3333

S4.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.43A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.43B]   0.2500

S4.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1      0.3333   [W.sub.44A]   0.2500
B        3        1      [W.sub.44B]   0.7500

S5.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.51A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.51B]   0.2500

S5.2     A        B        Symbol      Weiahts

A        1        2      [W.sub.52A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.52B]   0.3333

S5.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.53A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.53B]   0.3333

S5.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.5     [W.sub.54A]   0.3333
B        2        1      [W.sub.54B]   0.6667

S5.5     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.55A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.55B]   0.3333

S5.6     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.56A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.56B]   0.3333

S6.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1      0.3333   [W.sub.61A]   0.2500
B        3        1      [W.sub.61B]   0.7500

S6.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.5     [W.sub.62A]   0.3333
B        2        1      [W.sub.62B]   0.6667

S6.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        2      [W.sub.63A]   0.6667
B       0.5       1      [W.sub.63B]   0.3333

S6.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.5     [W.sub.iiA]   0.3333
B        2        1      [W.sub.iiB]   0.6667

S6.5     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1      0.3333   [W.sub.65A]   0.2500
B        3        1      [W.sub.65B]   0.7500

S6.6     A        B        Symbol      Weiahts

A        1        3      [W.sub.66A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.66B]   0.2500

S7.1     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.71A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.71B]   0.2500

S7.2     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.33    [W.sub.72A]   0.2500
B        3        1      [W.sub.72B]   0.7500

S7.3     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1        3      [W.sub.73A]   0.7500
B      0.3333     1      [W.sub.73B]   0.2500

S7.4     A        B        Symbol      Weights

A        1       0.5     [W.sub.74A]   0.3333
B        2        1      [W.sub.74B]   0.6667

Source: own

Tab. 12: Results of evaluation via standardized and non-
standardized evaluation

Evaluation         Variant A        Variant B      Difference
                 (day surgery)    (traditional
                                  health care)

Non-                2.8158           2.8037          0.43%
Standardized        0.5927           0.4074          31.27%

Source: own
COPYRIGHT 2014 Technical University of Liberec
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Business Administration and Management
Author:Soltes, Vincent; Gavurova, Beata
Publication:E+M Ekonomie a Management
Geographic Code:4EXSV
Date:Jul 1, 2014
Previous Article:The competitive environment among companies in the Czech part of Euroregion Neisse-Nisa-Nysa.
Next Article:Scenarios and their application in strategic planning.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |