震灾应急救护人员与受伤灾民双边匹配决策模型

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.0656

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2023, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (10): 224-233.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.10.0656

震灾应急救护人员与受伤灾民双边匹配决策模型

罗宏森¹^,²(), 刘佳旺³^,^**(), 杨琴⁴

¹ 四川师范大学全球治理与区域国别研究院,四川成都 610166
² 四川师范大学公共安全与应急研究院,四川成都 610066
³ 四川师范大学工学院,四川成都 610101
⁴ 四川师范大学商学院,四川成都 610101

收稿日期:2023-04-10 修回日期:2023-07-20 出版日期:2023-10-28
通讯作者:
**刘佳旺(1998—),男,重庆人,硕士,主要研究方向为应急管理与公共安全。E-mail:liujw19981010@163.com。

作者简介:

罗宏森 (1978—),男,甘肃永靖人,硕士,副教授,主要从事公共安全与应急管理、社会发展与危机治理、应急指挥与复杂决策等方面的研究。E-mail: luohongsen@163.com。

杨琴教授

基金资助:
四川省哲学社会科学重点研究基地区域公共管理信息化研究中心项目(QGXH21-12); 四川省基层卫生事业发展研究中心资助项目(SWFZ21-C-116); 教育部人文社会科学基金资助(20YJA630079); 成都市科技项目(2020-RK00-00052-ZF)

Bilateral matching decision model for earthquake emergency rescue personnel and injured victims

LUO Hongsen¹^,²(), LIU Jiawang³^,^**(), YANG Qin⁴

¹ Global Governance and Regional Country Studies Institute, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu Sichuan 610066, China
² Public Safety and Emergency Research Institute, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu Sichuan 610066, China
³ School of Engineering, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu Sichuan 610101, China
⁴ School of Business, Sichuan Normal University, Chengdu Sichuan 610101, China

Received:2023-04-10 Revised:2023-07-20 Published:2023-10-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高地震灾害后伤员的救护质量,从应急救护人员和受伤灾民的匹配问题入手,聚焦伤员转运后送环节,将决策者制定救护人员与灾民匹配方案的过程转化为一对多完全匹配问题,构建决策模型,求解最优匹配方案。首先,从应急环境和双方需求2方面分析匹配影响因素,设计科学可靠的匹配指标体系,并基于匹配指标收集双方信息;然后采用三角模糊数量化双方信息,基于后悔理论刻画决策者对匹配结果的感知效用,以感知效用最大化为目标建立双边匹配决策模型,并运用遗传算法求解;最后,引入“9·5”泸定地震案例,验证模型及算法的有效性。结果表明:基于后悔理论的双边匹配决策模型可以求得决策者感知效用的最大化目标,决策结果满足救护人员和受伤灾民需求,且能够有效规避双方匹配程度过低的匹配方案,提高震灾应急救护质量。

关键词: 震灾, 救护人员, 受伤灾民, 双边匹配, 决策模型, 救护质量, 后悔理论

Abstract:

In order to improve the quality of rescue for injured people after earthquakes, starting from the matching problem between emergency rescue personnel and injured victims, focusing on the transportation and evacuation process of the injured, the process of decision-makers formulating matching plans for rescue personnel and victims was transformed into a one-to-many perfect matching problem, and a decision-making model was constructed to solve the optimal matching plan. Firstly, the matching influencing factors were analyzed from two aspects: the emergency environment and the needs of both parties. A scientific and reliable matching indicator system was designed, and information from both parties was collected based on matching indicators. Then, triangular fuzzy numbers were used to quantify the information of both parties. Characterized the perceived utility of decision makers on matching results based on regret theory. A bilateral matching decision model was established with the goal of maximizing perceived utility, and a genetic algorithm was used to solve the problem. Finally, a "9·5" Luding earthquake case was introduced to verify the effectiveness of the model and algorithm. The results show that the bilateral matching decision model based on regret theory can achieve the maximum goal of decision-maker's perceived utility, and the decision results meet the needs of rescue personnel and injured victims. It can effectively avoid matching schemes with low matching degrees between both parties, and improve the quality of earthquake emergency rescue.

Key words: earthquake disasters, ambulance personnel, injured disaster victims, bilateral matching, decision model, rescue quality, regret theory

罗宏森, 刘佳旺, 杨琴. 震灾应急救护人员与受伤灾民双边匹配决策模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(10): 224-233.

LUO Hongsen, LIU Jiawang, YANG Qin. Bilateral matching decision model for earthquake emergency rescue personnel and injured victims[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(10): 224-233.

图/表 14

图1

图2

图3

表1

表2

表3

图4

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

参考文献 16

[1]	王欣, 方成勇, 唐小川. 泸定Ms 6.8地震诱发滑坡应急评价研究[J]. 武汉大学学报:信息科学版, 2023, 48(1):25-35.
	WANG Xin, FANG Chengyong, TANG Xiaochuan, et al. Research on emergency evaluation of landslides induced by the Luding Ms 6.8 earthquake[J]. Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University, 2023, 48(1):25-35.
[2]	张晨晓, 祝蕊, 刘海月, 等. 考虑伤员心理状况的应急医疗救护问题研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(10):187-196.
	ZHANG Chenxiao, ZHU Rui, LIU Haiyue, et al. The emergency victims rescue problem considering psychological condition[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2017, 25 (10): 187-196.
[3]	陈圣群, 王应明, 郑晶, 等. 考虑同群效应的志愿者与应急任务匹配方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(11):156-162.
	CHEN Shengqun, WANG Yingming, ZHENG Jing, et al. A method considering peer effect for matching volunteers with emergence tasks[J]. China Safety Sciences Journal, 2015, 25 (11): 156-162.
[4]	李铭洋, 曲晓宁, 李博, 等. 考虑多救援点的突发事件应急救援人员派遣模型[J]. 运筹与管理, 2018, 27(8):50-56. doi: 10.12005/orms.2018.0180
	LI Mingyang, QU Xiaoning, LI Bo, et al. Model for emergency rescuers assignment considering multiple disaster areas[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2018, 27(8):50-56. doi: 10.12005/orms.2018.0180
[5]	姜艳萍, 梁霞, 张浩. 考虑后悔与失望行为的应急方案选择方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2019, 28(11):91-97. doi: 10.12005/orms.2019.0253
	JIANG Yanping, LIANG Xia, ZHANG Hao. Method of selecting emergency alternative considering regret and disappointment behaviors of decision maker[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2019, 28 (11): 91-97. doi: 10.12005/orms.2019.0253
[6]	宋英华, 白明轩, 马亚萍, 等. 考虑多主体心理效应的应急资源调度超网络模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2):158-166. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.02.022
	SONG Yinghua, BAI Mingxuan, MA Yaping, et al. Super-network model of emergency resource scheduling considering multi-agent psychological effect[J]. China Safety Sciences Journal, 2021, 31 (2): 158-166.
[7]	车萤, 雷中杰, 何成奇, 等. 188例芦山地震伤员伤情分类及早期康复策略[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2013, 13(6):657-661.
	CHE Ying, LEI Zhongjie, HE Chengqi, et al. Injury categorization and early rehabilitation strategy of 188 victims of Lushan earthquake[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2013, 13(6):657-661.
[8]	夏哲远, 殷婷婷, 黄榕, 等. 护理人员参与“6·7”公交爆炸批量伤员救护体验的质性研究[J]. 解放军护理杂志, 2013, 30(14):5-8.
	XIA Zheyuan, YIN Tingting, HUANG Rong, et al. Qualitative research of nurses' mental experience for "6·7" mass blast patients rescu[J]. Military Nursing, 2013, 30 (14): 5-8.
[9]	张绮珊, 赖锦佳, 黄蝶卿, 等. 急诊科灾害专科护士工作体验的质性研究[J]. 护理学杂志, 2023, 38(3):58-61.
	ZHANG Qishan, LAI Jinjia, HUANG Dieqing, et al. Qualitative study on working experience of disaster specialist nurses in emergency department[J]. Journal of Nursing Science, 2023, 38 (3): 58-61.
[10]	袁铎宁, 姜艳萍, 梁海明. 考虑属性优先性的择期手术医患双边稳定匹配模型[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2020, 40(9):2367-2 378.
	YUAN Duoning, JIANG Yanping, LIANG Haiming. Two-sided stable matching model between selective operation patients and surgeons considering the priority of attributes[J]. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2020, 40 (9): 2 367-2 378.
[11]	郑国管, 王小合, 钱宇, 等. 患者满意度测评问题与治理路径思考[J]. 中国卫生政策研究, 2019, 12(3):8-16.
	ZHENG Guoguan, WANG Xiaohe, QIAN Yu, et al. Study of the challenges in the evaluation of patient satisfaction and the thinking of government path[J]. Chinese Journal of Health Policy, 2019, 12 (3): 8-16.
[12]	刘冉, 尤筱玥, 林辉, 等. 基于主客观赋权的企业专利组合质量评价[J]. 同济大学学报:自然科学版, 2023, 51(5):667-673.
	LIU Ran, YOU Xiaoyue, LIN Hui, et al. Firm patent portfolio quality evaluation based on combinatorial weighting method[J]. Journal of Tongji University:Natural Science, 2023, 51 (5): 667-673.
[13]	喻寅昀, 徐伟. 考虑顾客容忍区间的服务质量测评[J]. 统计与决策, 2019, 35(13):177-180.
	YU Yinyun, XU Wei. Service quality evaluation considering customer tolerance interval[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2019, 35 (13): 177-180.
[14]	李丽, 周荣义, 王凌睿, 等. 基于后悔理论的危化品公路桥梁运输风险评估[J]. 安全与环境工程, 2022, 29(2):71-77.
	LI Li, ZHOU Rongyi, WANG Lingrui, et al. Risk assessment of road bridge transportation of hazardous chemicals based on regret theory[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2022, 29 (2): 71-77.
[15]	许鹏, 刘敬贤, 陈淑楣, 等. 基于AHP群决策的三峡后续工作规划航运项目实施评估模型[J]. 中国航海, 2021, 44(3):84-91,111.
	XU Peng, LIU Jingxian, CHEN Shumei, et al. Implementation assessment model for waterway transport project of three gorges follow-up work plan based on AHP group decision making[J]. Navigation of China, 2021, 44 (3): 84-91,111.
[16]	汪新凡, 周浪, 朱远芳, 等. 基于后悔理论的概率犹豫模糊双边匹配决策方法[J]. 控制与决策, 2022, 37(9):2380-2388.
	WANG Xinfan, ZHOU Lang, ZHU Yuanfang, et al. Two-sided matching decision making method with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information based on regret theory[J]. Control and Decision, 2022, 37 (9): 2380-2388.

匹配指标	含义
沟通能力A₁	灾民正常交流与表述的能力
伤情严重A₂	不及时治疗对生命威胁的程度
伤情复杂A₃	治疗需要花费时间和资源的数量
情绪稳定A₄	能稳定控制自己语言和行为的能力

匹配指标	含义
理解能力B₁	正常交流并快速理解灾民想法的能力
救护态度B₂	对灾民持尊重、理解和安抚态度的能力
专业技术B₃	救护技术的专业性
资源设施B₄	资源和设施的充足完备程度
等待时间B₅	转运距离和等待接受救护的时间

语言变量	三角模糊数	代号
非常不重要/满意/符合	(0,0,0.17)	V₀
不重要/满意/符合	(0,0.17,0.33)	V₁
较不重要/满意/符合	(0.17,0.33,0.5)	V₂
一般重要/满意/符合	(0.3,0.50,0.67)	V₃
较重要/满意/符合	(0.50,0.67,0.83)	V₄
重要/满意/符合	(0.67,0.83,1)	V₅
非常重要/满意/符合	(0.83,1,1)	V₆

救护人员	需求	实情
H₁	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₅,V₅,V₄,V₃,V₄)
H₂	(V₅,V₄,V₄,V₄)	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₃,V₅)
H₃	(V₄,V₆,V₄,V₃)	(V₄,V₆,V₅,V₄,V₃)
H₄	(V₄,V₅,V₆,V₄)	(V₅,V₄,V₆,V₄,V4)
H₅	(V₅,V₅,V₅,V₄)	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅,V₅)
H₆	(V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₅,V₅,V₅,V₅,V₄)

灾民	需求	实情
S₁	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₄,V₆)	(V₄,V₂,V₃,V₄)
S₂	(V₅,V₄,V₅,V₄,V₅)	(V₄,V₄,V₂,V₄)
S₃	(V₅,V₆,V₄,V₆,V₄)	(V₃,V₂,V₃,V₅)
︙	︙	︙
S₁₄	(V₄,V₄,V₄,V₅,V₆)	(V₃,V₂,V₄,V₃)
S₁₅	(V₅,V₅,V₆,V₄,V₆)	(V₃,V₄,V₃,V₂)

震灾应急救护人员与受伤灾民双边匹配决策模型

Bilateral matching decision model for earthquake emergency rescue personnel and injured victims

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 14

参考文献 16

相关文章 12

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

匹配指标	沟通能力	伤情严重	伤情复杂	情绪稳定
沟通能力	1	1/6	1/5	1/3
伤情严重	6	1	3	5
伤情复杂	5	1/3	1	4
情绪稳定	3	1/5	1/4	1

专家序号	沟通能力	伤情严重	伤情复杂	情绪稳定
1	0.060 5	0.536 6	0.285 3	0.117 6
2	0.049 2	0.416 6	0.416 6	0.117 6
3	0.277 5	0.099 0	0.170 8	0.452 7
4	0.161 2	0.353 5	0.131 7	0.353 6
5	0.259 6	0.170 7	0.130 2	0.353 5

专家序号	理解能力	救护态度	专业技术	资源设施	等待时间
1	0.048 2	0.105 3	0.137 2	0.250 9	0.458 4
2	0.068 5	0.042 2	0.188 0	0.461 7	0.239 6
3	0.050 5	0.095 7	0.273 8	0.290 0	0.290 0
4	0.065 2	0.164 7	0.164 7	0.302 7	0.302 7
5	0.074 1	0.214 7	0.121 5	0.375 0	0.214 7

视角	匹配方案	最大感知效用
视角	匹配方案	maxE	maxF
受伤灾民	(H₁,S₅)(H₂,S₁)(H₃,S₉) (H₄,S₂)(H₄,S₇)(H₄,S₁₂)(H₄,S₁₅)(H₅,S₄)(H₅,S₁₀) (H₅,S₁₃) (H₅,S₁₄)(H₆,S₃)(H₆,S₆)(H₆,S₈)(H₆,S₁₁)	12.801 4	13.950 6
救护人员	(H₁,S₃)(H₂,S₈)(H₃,S₅)(H₃,S₇)(H₃,S₁₂)(H₃,S₁₄)(H₄,S₄)(H₄,S₁₀)(H₄,S₁₁) (H₄,S₁₅) (H₅,S₁)(H₅,S₂)(H₅,S₆)(H₅,S₉)(H₆,S₁₃)	13.354 9	13.257 0
公平	(H₁,S₃)(H₂,S₁)(H₃,S₅)(H₃,S₈)(H₃,S₁₁)(H₃,S₁₂)(H₄,S₂)(H₄,S₇)(H₄,S₁₀) (H₄,S₁₅) (H₅,S₄)(H₅,S₉)(H₅,S₁₃)(H₅,S₁₄)(H₆,S₆)	13.261 7	13.619 0

心理	匹配方案	最大感知效用
心理	匹配方案	maxE	maxF
后悔规避	(H₁,S₃)(H₂,S₁)(H₃,S₅)(H₃,S₈)(H₃,S₁₁)(H₃,S₁₂)(H₄,S₂)(H₄,S₇)(H₄,S₁₀) (H₄,S₁₅)(H₅,S₄)(H₅,S₉)(H₅,S₁₃)(H₅,S₁₄)(H₆,S₆)	13.261 7	13.619 0
平常心理	(H₁,S₅)(H₂,S₁)(H₃,S₈)(H₃,S₁₁)(H₃,S₁₂)(H₄,S₂)(H₄,S₇)(H₄,S₁₀) (H₄,S₁₅) (H₅,S₄)(H₅,S₉)(H₅,S₁₃)(H₅,S₁₄)(H₆,S₃)(H₆,S₆)	13.163 7	13.757 1

[1]	王伟, 张思远, 齐庆杰, 刘文岗, 孙祚, 李媛媛. 地震诱发井工煤矿次生灾害系统研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(7): 196-202.
[2]	李啸然, 陈昕, 谢中朋. WSR-博弈赋权-后悔理论的气膜馆火灾风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(6): 174-180.
[3]	王伟, 宋月, 陈志松, 黄莉, 石雨欣. 防汛物资应急储备管理博弈决策模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(5): 191-198.
[4]	韩林, 赵旭东, 陈志龙, 龚华栋. 地震灾害下城市供水网络韧性评估及优化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2): 135-142.
[5]	林勇, 肖骅, 张立, 漆磊. 震灾应急物资分配-运输优化模型及算法研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10): 171-178.
[6]	朱宝岩, 李柏冬, 刘玉姣, 杨昆. 模糊痕迹安全决策模型及其应用研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8): 17-22.
[7]	杨琴, 陈金铭, 刘桔, 张伟. 基于双边匹配决策的应急救助人员任务分配[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(1): 180-186.
[8]	钱枫林，崔健. BP神经网络模型在应急需求预测中的应用——以地震伤亡人数预测为例[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2013, 23(4): 20-.
[9]	陈虹，宋富喜，闻明，彭碧波，谢霄锋，王建军，李蕊，曲旻皓. 地震应急救援标准体系及其关键标准研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(7): 164-.
[10]	贾增科. 基于Vague集的城市地震灾害综合脆弱性度量及其应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(4): 3-.
[11]	朱茵，张鑫，隋晓庆，赵檑. 地震灾害紧急救援可支配交通链路选择研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2012, 22(3): 164-.
[12]	刘朝峰，苏经宇，王威，田杰，王志涛. 区域地震灾害承载力评价的突变模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(11): 8-.