Vendor evaluation platform for acquisition of medical equipment based on multi-criteria decision-making approach
The purchase of medical equipment is a critical issue that should be planned properly. The selection of the most appropriate vendor impacts time, effort, and expenses. Therefore, the challenge is to strike a balance between the available budget and the required equipment. The study aims to select th...
Saved in:
Published in: | Scientific reports Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 12746 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
London
Nature Publishing Group UK
07-08-2023
Nature Publishing Group Nature Portfolio |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | The purchase of medical equipment is a critical issue that should be planned properly. The selection of the most appropriate vendor impacts time, effort, and expenses. Therefore, the challenge is to strike a balance between the available budget and the required equipment. The study aims to select the best vendor for supplying medical equipment based on Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) standards. The multi-criteria decision-making approach has been adopted through three methods; Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis (MOORA), Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). The criteria of selection are divided into general, technical, and financial. The criteria are weighted using three methods: CRITIC, entropy, and expert judgment. The Vendor Evaluation Program for Medical Equipment (VEPME) is designed to automatically select the best vendor. Medical imaging equipment is selected to test the program by four modalities: X-ray equipment, CT, MRI, and ultrasound. The best scenario was given by the entropy-TOPSIS. As a result, this methodology was adopted by the program. The results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed methodology by comparing the VEPME output to expert judgment. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2045-2322 2045-2322 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41598-023-38902-3 |