=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3816/paper51
|storemode=property
|title=Fair Shifts by the Rule: a Rule-based Compliance
Methodology for Medical Rosters
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3816/paper51.pdf
|volume=Vol-3816
|authors=Guido Governatori,Ilaria Angela Amantea,Marinella Quaranta,Marianna Molinari,Simone Vagnoni,Andrea Filippo Ferraris,Giuseppe Contissa,Monica Palmirani,Marco Busso,Marco Grosso
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/rulemlrr/GovernatoriAQMV24
}}
==Fair Shifts by the Rule: a Rule-based Compliance
Methodology for Medical Rosters==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3816/paper51.pdf
Fair Shifts by the Rule: a Rule-based Compliance
Methodology for Medical Rosters
Guido Governatori1,2,∗ , Ilaria Angela Amantea3 , Marinella Quaranta3,4 , Marianna Molinari3,4 ,
Simone Vagnoni4 , Andrea Filippo Ferraris4 , Giuseppe Contissa4 , Monica Palmirani4 ,
Marco Busso5 and Marco Grosso5
1
College of Information and Communication Technology, Central Queensland University
2
Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Futures Institute, Charles Sturt University
3
Computer Science Department, University of Turin
4
LaST-JD, Univeristy of Bologna
5
Azienda Sanitaria Locale ASLTO3, Turin
Abstract
We present a rule-based system to check whether a roster of doctors in a healthcare setting complies with the
work conditions mandated by the Italian National Contracts of Employment for medical doctors.
Keywords
Compliance, Defeasible Deontic Logic, E-Health, Healthcare, Scheduling,
1. Introduction
In healthcare, especially in hospitals, each human asset is fundamental. Each part of the medical and
non-medical staff ensures the proper working of health services, and the time they spend working for
health services affects the outcome of every medical care service.
A well-defined hospital scheduling, can increase productivity and leads to an efficient use of infras-
tructure and facilities [1]. Scheduling is needed in each medical department and for each type of worker
(doctors, nurses, socio-sanitary workers, and administrative staff).
At least in Italy, the medical staff currently spends part of their working time on administrative tasks,
both because of a lack of administrative staff and their expertise in medical logistics. Scheduling medical
rosters is an example of an administrative task carried out by the medical staff (also, the Italian National
Collective Labour Agreement in Healthcare regulating the working conditions of physicians in hospitals
mandates this activity to chief physicians in charge of a medical departments). A well-fixed roster
scheduling in a specific department is a long process and involves knowledge of medical procedures
(their duration, the availability of medical staff, their specialities, the necessity of further assistance
by other members of the hospital staff, the availability of rooms, etc.). The roster scheduling has to
be carried out by the category chief, e.g. the chief physician of the department, the chief nurse of the
department etc. This is for reason of responsibility, although it is a lengthy administrative task that
takes time away from patient care for the department’s most experienced personnel.
RuleML+RR’24: Companion Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Rules and Reasoning, September 16–22, 2024,
Bucharest, Romania
∗
Corresponding author.
Envelope-Open g.governatori@cqu.edu.au (G. Governatori); ilariaangela.amantea@unito.it (I. A. Amantea); marinella.quaranta@unito.it
(M. Quaranta); marianna.molinari@unito.it (M. Molinari); simone.vagnoni3@unibo.it (S. Vagnoni); andrea.ferraris3@unibo.it
(A. F. Ferraris); giuseppe.contissa@unibo.it (G. Contissa); monica.palmirani@unibo.it (M. Palmirani);
marco.busso@aslto3.piemonte.it (M. Busso); marco.grosso@aslto3.piemonte.it (M. Grosso)
Orcid 0000-0002-9878-2762 (G. Governatori); 0000-0003-1329-1858 (I. A. Amantea); 0000-0003-2691-0611 (M. Quaranta);
0009-0003-1832-8135 (M. Molinari); 0009-0008-8296-8299 (S. Vagnoni); 0009-0004-7487-5560 (A. F. Ferraris);
0000-0002-8511-1505 (G. Contissa); 0000-0002-8557-8084 (M. Palmirani); 0000-0001-8176-8641 (M. Busso);
0000-0002-7083-0929 (M. Grosso)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Talking with many physicians of different Italian hospitals, currently specific tools or advanced tools
to accomplish scheduling are inadequate. They simply combine shifts and staff, but without taking into
account the particular needs of the staff, needs of the medical procedures, needs of the structure, legal
guidelines and are not versatile enough to meet imminent and not programmable well in advance needs
as in hospital environment is required.
In conclusion, in most Italian hospitals, scheduling rosters is still a manual on-paper task, or sometimes
with the additional support of basic programs like Excel.
Making shifts means taking into account many types of factors:
• Organizational. Such as: how much staff is available? With what specializations? How many
services need to be covered? etc.
• Legal. Such as:
– National law: professional requirements, physical restrictions (e.g. certified disabilities).
– National labour law: e.g. how many (min and max) hours can people work, national holidays,
permits, etc.
– Professional guidelines: e.g. minimum specialised staff requiredfor a specific exam or service,
etc.
– Internal procedures necessities.
• Personal necessities: holiday requests, permits, health problems, physical restrictions, preference
in the services provided, etc.
• Last minute occurrences: swap shifts, events that unexpectedly necessitate rescheduling a large
number of shifts for a large amount of staff.
Based on our own personal experience (i.e., monthly creation of rosters) and anecdotal discussion
with other chief physicians in other Italian hospitals, planning shifts is a very long task. During the
planning, a plurality of requirements needs to be checked and, once the roster draft is completed, it has
to be checked again from the perspective of equity and fairness. This double-check is needed for both a
good quality working environment and a good quality service for patients.
In the healthcare field, new emerging technologies are often tested to improve care and general
organization i.e. process mining [2], medical devices [3], tools for telemedicine [4] and now AI systems
[5].
AI can improve several tasks related to care. AI could help schedule and suggest the best solutions in
shift drafting, considering various features and variables. It would allow for human modification while
guaranteeing equality of treatment for everyone.
In this first paper, we first focus on the aim to provide a framework to automatically support the
compliance checking of medical rosters in Italy. This is because the lack of legal compliance checking
is the common missing requirement of the existing tools and because it is the fundamental requirement
for the rosters, whether they are hand-made or automatically created. Even if the methodology and
the future tool can be used in every country, for this first example, we will consider Italy and Italian
regulations.
The compliance is checked according to the Italian National Collective Labour Agreement in Health-
care (CCNL)1 . For reason of space, we will provide an example with just a pair of rules. From a broader
perspective of optimization, the decrease in working time for an administrative task of a highly qualified
resource in the medical field would also ensure the possibility of visiting more patients and, thus, the
reduction of waiting times for medical services.
In the following section the background is presented. In Section 3, the architecture of the compliance
checker is shown, and for each subsection, the details of every layer are highlighted. In Section 4, a
summary and future work are presented.
1
Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro (CCNL) dell’area sanità, GU Serie Generale n.59 del 11-03-2024 in https://www.
gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2024/03/11/24A01226/sg
2. Background
In Italy, the chief of every professional category of the healthcare sector is in charge of the roster
drafting. In our paper, we focus on the roster scheduling for medical doctors.
The chief physician is in charge of scheduling rosters because they know physicians’ medical
specialties, preferences, and necessities. The chief physician is also aware of restraints and requirements
related to medical shifts according to the national legal framework.
From the collaborations with many main Italian hospitals, it emerged that the chief physician spends
approximately 16 hours of work to finalize the monthly schedule, considering numerous variables that
need to be coordinated. For example, every person on the night shift must take mandatory rest and
must not be allocated to the next shift. Furthermore, night shifts must be equally distributed among the
available physicians. Every activity must be assigned to somebody , when not resting. Also, staff rotate
over the activities, attending different shifts and avoiding repeating the shifts they were allocated to for
the previous days.
The CCNL (namely “Contratto Collettivo Nazionale di Lavoro dell’Area Sanità” in Italian) is the
national legal framework for physicians’ rosters. According to the Italian legal system, professional
activities and remunerations are not established only by the law. They are established through collective
negotiations conducted by trade unions of a specific professional sector. The CCNL is the pipeline
for drafting legally compliant rosters as it defines the amount of working hours, how they should be
allocated, rules for holidays and leave distributions, night shifts and non-stop shifts, etc.
The chief physician ensures compliance with these rules, but their work is affected by spending a
significant number of hours per month on a non-medical activity. This purely administrative task of
checking the legal compliance of the scheduled roster can and should be automated.
What we aim to propose is a methodology for checking the legal compliance of physician rosters
according to the above-mentioned national regulation.
Starting from the assumption that being compliant means satisfying a set of measures to ensure
that the (business) activities align to (legal) requirements they are subject to [6, 7]; the Defeasible
Deontic Logic (DDL) [8] provides a conceptually sound, domain-neutral and computationally efficient
representation of normative specifications. The reasoning mechanism of DDL has a (constructive)
argumentation-like structure, and its language obeys the principles set in [9] for a rule language to be
suitable for the representation of legal knowledge compatible with the LegalRuleML standard [10].
DDL has been successfully adopted to norms from a wide range of domains, including regulations [11],
(business) contracts [12], autonomous agents and agent policies [13], building regulations [14], traffic
rules [15], health-care policies [16] and the Australian spent conviction discipline [17]. Accordingly,
DDL should be able to handle the legal requirements set for the work conditions for medical doctors by
the CCNL. In what follows, we give a short overview of DDL, and we illustrate the language with some
examples of rules corresponding to CCNL provisions.
In DDL, a norm is represented as an IF… THEN⋯ rule, where the IF part describes the conditions
of applicability of the rule/norm, and the THEN part is the legal effect of the norm. There are two
types of effects: a rule defines a term in the context of the set or norms (constitutive rule), or the rule
mandates that a normative requirement –obligation, prohibition, permission–is in force if the conditions
of applicability hold (normative rule, subdivided in prescriptive rules and permissive rules). Thus, we
have expressions of the form
𝑟 ∶ 𝑎1 , … , 𝑎𝑛 ⇒𝑋 𝑒
where 𝑟 is the rule label, unique for each rule; 𝑎1 , … , 𝑎𝑛 are the conditions of the applicability (represented
as propositions or deontic propositions); 𝑒, again a proposition, is the conclusion or effect of the rule;
and 𝑋 specifies the type of rule. If 𝑋 = 𝐶 we have a constitutive rule, and the effect is 𝑒; otherwise, we
have a normative rule, and the conclusion 𝑒 is within the scope of a deontic operator. The operator
depends on the value of 𝑋, where we have the obligation (or prohibition) of 𝑐 (i.e., O𝑐) if 𝑋 = O or that 𝑐
is permitted (i.e., P𝑐) if 𝑋 = P. The language and the reasoning mechanism of DDL allow us to deal
with a complete family of legal requirements [18], including violations and compensatory measures,
and a rich and natural treatment of exceptions [8]: when rules conflict we can specify that one of the
rules defeats the other (i.e., 𝑟1 ≻ 𝑟2 , rule 𝑟1 overrules rule 𝑟2 ).
For example, the norm stipulating that the service offered by a doctor in stand-by called for duty is
regarded as a medical emergency service can be formalised by the following constitutive rule:
Service(standBy), Shift(Doctor, standBy, Day, Week), Worked(Doctor, standBy, Day, Week),
Emergency(standBy) ⇒𝐶 Worked(Doctor, Service, Day, Week)
This rule specifies that stand-by is one of the services; if a doctor is scheduled to be on stand-by for a
particular shift and is called for duty, then the service counts as having worked in an emergency service
(this has implications for the rate of pay and the future shifts to be allocated to the doctor).
On the other hand, an example of a prescriptive rule is the following
Director(Doctor), Emergency(onCall) ⇒O ¬Shift(Doctor, onCall, Day, Week)
encoding section 29.2 that forbids directors of medical units to serve as “doctor-on-call”. However, the
prohibition is overridden by the permissive rule
Director(Doctor), ¬CoveredServices(Day, Week), Emergency(onCall)
⇒P Shift(Doctor, onCall, Day, Week)
that allows unit directors to be a doctor-on-call if the personnel available is insufficient to cover the
required services.
The reasoning mechanism is based on a three-phase argumentation-like structure: (1) in the first
phase, we identify an argument (either a fact or an applicable rule) for the conclusion we want to assert.
(2) In the second phase, we consider possible counter-arguments (i.e., rules for the opposite conclusion).
(3) We must rebut the counter-arguments in the third and final phase. We have two ways. (i) undercut:
we show that the rule is not applicable, as some premises do not hold; (ii) defeat: we use the superiority
relation to show that a counter-argument is weaker than an applicable rule for the conclusion we want
to prove.
For the full details about the logic, its properties, algorithms, motivations, and applications, we refer
the readers to [19, 8].
3. Legal Rostering Architecture
We are going to discuss the architecture of the rostering compliance checking tool, shown in Fig. 1.
The aim of the tools is, given a doctor roster and the conditions mandated in the CCNL, to determine if
the allocation of the doctors to the various shifts in the roster conforms with the legal requirements set
by the CCNL.
For implementing our medical roster compliance checking system, we adopted CLINGO2 . CLINGO is
a modern and efficient implementation of the Answer Set Programming (ASP) [20], and it allows for
the integration with other programming languages (Python and Lua) for pre-, post- and interleaving
processing. For our purposes, we opted for a multi-phase process that integrates Python for data
(pre)processing, LegalRuleML for representing norms stated in the CCNL in a machine-processable
format, and an implementation of Defeasible Deontic Logic in ASP for logical modelling of the norms.
Here, we describe each phase.
3.1. LegalRuleML
As we referred to above, we need a formal representation of the norms established in the CCNL. We
manually translated the relevant section of CCNL in LegalRuleML. LegalRuleML [21, 22] is an XML-
based standard for the representation of norms and legal knowledge. LegalRuleML is technology-neutral
2
https://potassco.org.
Figure 1: Architecture of the rostering compliance checking tool.
in the sense that the representation does not depend on any specific language or system to formalise
and reason with the norms, and the LegalRuleML encoding can be translated to a target language and
implementation. At the same time, the standard offers features such as distinction between normative
and prescriptive rules, defeasible rules, override relationships over rules, deontic operators, makes it
suitable to encode norms.
For instance, we show how to encode (part of) Section 27 establishing the limit of hours a doctor can
work in a week (or, to be more precise, the maximum number of hours the doctor can be allocated to
when a roster is prepared).
In LegalRuleML, a rule is a statement; where a statement can be either prescriptive or constitutive
(with the same meaning discussed in the previous section). Similarly, a rule has an if-then structure
(inherited from RuleML, so they are in the ruleml namespace). The “if” and “then” parts of a rule
contain logical expressions (with Boolean operators), where the basic element is an Atom . An atom
can be declared with a Rel (a predicate or a proposition). For a predicate, it is possible to specify
its arguments. An argument can be either a variable (Var ) or a constant Con . The iri points to the
definition of a predicate/proposition and the specific variables and constants. LegalRuleML extends
RuleML with deontic operators (Obligation , Permission , and Prohibition ); see [21] for the full
description of the LegalRuleML standard.
Accordingly, the rule above states that normally, the scheduled hours for a doctor cannot exceed
the weekly limits; thus, we have the predicate Weekly_limit that takes a doctor and a week as its
argument. However, CCNL also states that the limit can be exceeded if there are some specific service
requirements; the following LegalRuleML statement captures this.
Notice that the first statement sets an obligation in the conclusion (then element of the rule) while
the second enforce a permission as its conclusion. Given that an obligation and the permission of the
opposite conflict, we have to specify which rule takes precedence when both are applicable, this is done
by
specifying that the rule for the permission is stronger than the rule for the obligation (and thus, the
permission is an exception to the obligation).
The next part is writing statements (rules) to determine the weekly limits. We can use the following
constitutive rules:
This rule establishes by default that the number of hours per week for a doctor is within the limit, then
the next rule specifies that if the worked hours are in excess of 38 hours, then we are over the limit (the
limit is not satisfied)
GreaterThan
38
and similarly to what we have done with the prescriptive rules, the second rule overrides the first one.
3.2. From LegalRuleML to DDL and ASP
We have implemented a parser in Python that takes the rules in LegalRuleML and transforms them in
DDL and in the format required by the DDL implementation in ASP [23].3 For example, the rules of the
previous section are translated in DDL as
Art27 .1 ∶ ⇒O WeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week)
Art27 .2 ∶ ServiceRequirement(Week) ⇒P ¬WeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week)
Art27 .1.c0 ∶ ⇒𝐶 WeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week)
Art27 .1.c1 ∶ WeeklyHours(Doctor, Week) ≥ 38 ⇒𝐶 ¬WeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week)
Art27 .2 > Art27 .1
Art27 .1.c2 > Art27 .1.c1
In a situation (week) where there are not service requirement, we conclude that the condition
OWeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week)
holds, thus, there is obligation to schedule an appropriate number of hours. Then we check if the
number of worked hours exceeds 38 or not. If it does, then rule Art27 .1.c1 is applicable, and we conclude
¬WeeklyLimit(Doctor, Week), from which we conclude that there is a violation and that the roster table
might not be compliant.
3
The DDL ASP implementation is avalable at https://github.com/gvdgdo/Defeasible-Deontic-Logic.
For the ASP implementation, given that CLINGO does not support explicit lists, we split each rule
in two ASP clauses: one for the label and the conclusion of the rule, the second for its condition of
applicability. Thus for a rule
𝑟 ∶ 𝑎1 , … , 𝑎1 ⇒𝑋 𝑒
we create the clauses
Rule(r,e).
applicable(r,e) :- defeasible(a_1), ... , defeasaible(a_n).
An important aspect to consider for the formal representation of the rule is that the conclusions of the
rules are predicates with arguments, and thus, it is possible to have different values for the variables.
Thus, we need to incorporate the argument (more precisely, the primary key of the rules, in the rule
label). Moreover, ASP requires the rules to be safe. This means that all variables in the head of the
rule must appear in the body of the rule [24]. To accommodate the first requirement we use the key
attribute to indicate what variables are part of the primary key of the rule. The Python parser from
LegalRuleML/DDL to the ASP implementation of DDL examines the variables appearing in the rules,
uses the information about the types of the variables to include appropriate predicates in the body of
the rules (thus the instances of doctor(Doctor) and week(Week) in the ASP clauses below); for the
full details of how to encode rules in our DDL ASP implementation, see [23].
Accordingly, the rules above we are translated as follow,
prescriptiveRule(art27_1(Doctor,Week),weeklyLimit(Doctor,Week)) :-
doctor(Doctor), week(Week).
applicable(art27_1(Doctor,Week),weeklyLimit(Doctor,Week)) :-
doctor(Doctor), week(Week).
permissiveRule(art27_2(Doctor,Week),non(weeklyLimit(Doctor,Week))) :-
doctor(Doctor), week(Week).
applicable(art27_2(Doctor,Week),non(weeklyLimit(Doctor,Week))) :-
defeasible(ServiceRequirement(Week)), doctor(Doctor).
superior(art27_2(Doctor,Week),art27_1(Doctor,Week)).
...
constitutiveRule(art27_1_c2(Doctor,Week),non(weeklyLimit(Doctor,Week)) :-
#sum { Hours,D,W : shift(D,S,W,Hours) } > 38, doctor(D), week(W).
An important aspect to consider for the formal representation of the rule is that the conclusions of the
rules are predicates with arguments, and thus, it is possible to have different values for the variables.
Thus, we need to incorporate the argument (more precisely, the primary key of the rules, in the rule
label). Moreover, ASP requires the rules to be safe. This means that all variables in the head of the
rule must appear in the body of the rule [24]. To accommodate the first requirement we use the key
attribute to indicate what variables are part of the primary key of the rule. The Python parser from
LegalRuleML/DDL to the ASP implementation of DDL examines the variables appearing in the rules,
uses the information about the types of the variables to include appropriate predicates in the body of
the rules (thus the instances of doctor(Doctor) and week(Week) in the ASP clauses above).
There are several reasons for implementing the tools using the ASP implementation of DDL. The
first is that it will handle the grounding of the rules, and then it offers an efficient computation of the
extension of the program. The second is that we can use the built-in aggregate functions. Thus the
function WeeklyHours(Doctor, Week) is implemented by the CLINGO aggregate function
#sum { Hours,D,W : shift(D,S,W,Hours) } > 38, doctor(D), week(W).
3.3. Data Preprocessing with Python
The next step is to extract the raw roster data from CSV files into a structured format suitable for ASP
processing, focusing on standardization, relevant information extraction, and preparation for logical
modelling.
Steps:
Data Extraction: A custom Python script systematically parses large-scale CSV files to extract
critical scheduling information. This includes:
• Staff identifiers (e.g., doctor names or unique IDs)
• Service types (e.g., emergency, surgery, outpatient)
• Shift timings (start and end times)
• Dates of scheduled shifts
This foundational data forms the basis for all subsequent scheduling analyses and manipulations.
Data Transformation: The extracted data undergoes a transformation process:
• Raw date strings are converted to Python datetime objects
• Shift times are normalized to a 24-hour format
• Week numbers are calculated for each shift date
• Holidays and special dates are identified and flagged
This standardization enables precise temporal calculations crucial for compliance checking.
Data Standardization: To ensure consistency, we implement a comprehensive mapping schema
that:
• Normalizes service names (e.g., ”ER” and ”Emergency Room” are mapped to a single identifier)
• Standardizes role descriptions across different departments
• Unifies any inconsistent terminologies present in the raw data
This step is vital for ensuring that the logical modeling phase operates on a consistent dataset.
According to the procedure we obtain records with the folowing format
doctor(sencla).
...
service(emergency_room).
...
duration(emergegy_room,12).
...
shift(sencla,emergency_room,1,52).
...
denoting, respectively, that sencla is a doctor, the emergency-room is one of the services offered by
the hospital, and its duration is 12 hours, and that doctor sencla is scheduled to work the emergency
room shift on day 1 of week 52.
Another important feature is that it is possible to integrate CLINGO with Python to create external
functions and run CLINGO in conjunction with other Python scripts. We have implemented several
external functions, in particular for temporal operators (difference of hours, determining what day of
the week is a particular date and so on) The integration of these external Python functions significantly
enhances the capabilities of our ASP-based roster compliance checking system. By providing complex
time calculations, shift analysis, and calendar operations, these functions enable the ASP solver to
handle intricate scheduling constraints that would be difficult or impossible to express directly in ASP.
This approach combines the declarative power of ASP with the computational flexibility of Python,
resulting in a robust and versatile system capable of addressing the complex requirements of medical
staff scheduling while ensuring compliance with labour regulations and organizational policies.
3.4. Compliance Checking
The final step of the process is to execute the program. We have tested the implementation with
real shift data (1 month) from a hospital. The data included 25 doctors and 17 services offered by the
hospital. The compliance tool was able to analyse the data and report compliance violations (this was
not unexpected), and it took a few seconds on a laptop computer to generate the model. Most of the
execution time was dedicated to grounding the theory. The DDL implementation requires specifying
the domain of the application; thus we have to create ASP clauses like
atom(shitf(Doctor,Service,Day,Week)):-
doctor(Doctor), service(Service), day(Day), week(Week).
to provide appropriate grounding. Now, types doctor , service , day and week have, respectively, 25,
17, 31, and 52 distinct values. Accordingly, during the grounding, over 650,000 ASP atoms are generated.
Clearly, most of them are useless, and we plan to use more clever Python scripts to minimise the number
of atoms that need to be created and to improve the response time. Notice, however, that on a laptop
computer, the grounding for a year of data takes between 2 and 3 seconds, and the evaluation of the
full program (with rule encoding the CCNL, between 10 and 15 seconds). In addition, a roster must
be created every month; thus we can restrict the grounding and evaluation to the data for one month,
and such a computation takes approximately less than 2 seconds. For the monthly computation, a few
additional predicates must be created, and the result of their computation stored and updated every
month (this comports a negligible overhead for each single monthly computation, but with a significant
saving over the computation for an entire year).
At the same time, to test the correctness of the rules and implementation, we created a few instances
of non-compliant shifts. The tool reported non-compliance issues. Notice that the ASP DDL implemen-
tation [23] has as built-in violation predicates, and it is easy to use them to build customised violation
predicates to report specific noncompliance issues, for example:
violazione(Doctor,Week_limit,Max,Worked) :-
violation(art27_1(Doctor,Week),week_limit(Doctor,Week),1),
defeasible(max_hours(Max,Doctor,Week)),
worked_hours(Worked,Doctor,Week).
4. Summary and Future Work
The issue of rostering medical staff (and other domain) has been the focus of research in operational
research and constraints programming for a long time (see among other [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]).
Despite the success in research, based on our personal experience, there seems to be little uptake in
practice, with a few attempts on automated rostering in recent years [32, 33, 34]. Most of the models are
too complex for hospital staff to use or do not provide useful features for physicians, and are extremely
hard to customise [35]. In addition, we are not aware of approaches taking into consideration the
relevant legislative framework governing the work conditions.
This study presents a comprehensive framework for automating the scheduling of medical staff
using a combination of Python for data preprocessing and Answer Set Programming (ASP) with
CLINGO for logical modeling. The system is designed to address the intricate challenges of scheduling
in healthcare settings by integrating advanced computational tools and methodologies to enhance
efficiency, compliance, and fairness in shift allocation.
The implementation demonstrates that the use of Python to standardize and prepare data, coupled
with the declarative nature of ASP for rule-based logic modeling, effectively creates a robust and scalable
solution. This approach not only streamlines the scheduling process but also ensures that all operational,
legal, and personal constraints are systematically addressed and adhered to. Moreover, the integration
of external functions allows for real-time adjustments and validations, further enhancing the system’s
adaptability to dynamic operational requirements.
The outcomes of this study indicate significant improvements in scheduling efficiency and compliance
with legal standards. By automating the rostering process, healthcare facilities can potentially reduce
administrative overhead, minimize human error, and better allocate resources to direct patient care.
This shift in resource management could lead to reduced waiting times for patients and improved job
satisfaction among staff due to fairer and more transparent shift distributions.
Accordingly, we plan to extend our follow the approach by Dodaro and coworkers [30, 31], and to
use ASP as a constraint solver to generate legally valid roster incorporating the ASP encoding of the
CCNL requirements.
Future Directions: While the current system provides a solid foundation for staff scheduling, several
avenues for future research and development emerge:
• Integration with Hospital Information Systems: Future iterations could explore deeper
integration with existing hospital information systems to automate data flow and further reduce
manual interventions (e.g., by automatically recruiting staff with their qualifications, rest, illness,
recruitment etc.; or by linking with the patient booking system).
• Advanced Machine Learning Techniques: Implementing machine learning could offer predic-
tive insights into staffing needs, taking into account historical data, trends, and even predicting
future demand spikes.
• User Interface Development: Developing a user-friendly interface for schedule management
could enhance accessibility and usability for administrative staff, allowing for easier adjustments
and real-time feedback (e.g., in the event of machinery maintenance, it may be feasible to open
temporary rooms with different hours than usual).
• Expansion to Other Roles: Extending the framework to include other hospital staff categories,
such as nursing and administrative personnel, could help in achieving a more integrated and
holistic scheduling system across the entire institution.
• Cross-Facility Scheduling Solutions: For healthcare networks, developing solutions that
optimize staff allocation across multiple facilities could further enhance efficiency and resource
utilization (e.g., in Italy, health territorial facilities its made by one main hospital, maybe one or
more minor hospitals and fixed or temporary hubs scattered on the territory. The staff group
is just one and the rosters must take into account the demands of patients on the territory and
different buildings).
In conclusion, the deployment of AI and logical programming in healthcare scheduling represents a
significant advancement in the management of medical staff. The successful implementation of this
system sets a precedent for further research into automated solutions that are not only compliant with
regulatory frameworks but also responsive to the complex dynamics of healthcare environments.
As a future work, we want to upgrade this solution with an AI tool able to automatically create
compliant rosters.
In a view of high level optimization hospital processes and cascading beneficial effects [36], the aim
of this research is to provide a tool able to release the highly qualified medical staff from a purely
administrative task. In this way, these changes will allow highly qualified medical staff to spend more
time with patients and reduce waiting lists. Finally, even if the presented paper shows an Italian example,
therefore, with Italian legislation, the framework is usable for all existing hospitals taking into account
the legislation or needs of the other country.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in the context of the European Digital Innovation Hub (EDIH) for the Healthcare
Digital and AI support and innovation (Circular Health European Digital Innovation Hub - CHEDIH)
(www.chedih.eu) in Piedmont Region, Italy.
References
[1] R. L. Burdett, E. Kozan, An integrated approach for scheduling health care activities in a hospital,
European Journal of Operational Research 264 (2018) 756–773.
[2] J. Munoz-Gama, N. Martin, C. Fernandez-Llatas, O. A. Johnson, M. Sepúlveda, E. Helm, V. Galvez-
Yanjari, E. Rojas, A. Martinez-Millana, D. Aloini, et al., Process mining for healthcare: Characteris-
tics and challenges, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 127 (2022) 103994.
[3] I. A. Amantea, E. Sulis, G. Boella, F. De Marchi, L. Mazzini, F. Alloatti, A. Bolioli, Adopting assistive
technologies in healthcare processes: a chatbot for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in:
Italian forum of ambient assisted living, Springer, 2020, pp. 163–174.
[4] I. A. Amantea, E. Sulis, G. Boella, R. Marinello, M. Grosso, A. Crespo, A modeling framework for
an innovative e-health service: the hospital at home, in: Simulation and Modeling Methodologies,
Technologies and Applications: 10th International Conference, SIMULTECH 2020 Lieusaint-Paris,
France, July 8-10, 2020 Revised Selected Papers 10, Springer, 2022, pp. 111–132.
[5] F. De Marchi, I. A. Amantea, M. Serioli, E. Sulis, G. Boella, F. Alloatti, A. Bolioli, S. Riso, R. Cantello,
L. Mazzini, E-health solutions for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: A chatbot for dietary
monitoring, Journal of the Neurological Sciences 429 (2021).
[6] M. Hashmi, G. Governatori, H.-P. Lam, M. T. Wynn, Are we done with business process compliance:
State-of-the-art and challenges ahead, Knowledge and Information Systems 57 (2018) 79–133.
[7] H. Groesfema, N. van Beest, G. Governatori, On the use of the conformance and compliance
keywords during verification of business processes, in: BPM Forum 2022, volume 458 of LNBPI,
Springer, 2022, pp. 21–37.
[8] G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, G. Sartor, Logic and the law: Philosophical foundations, deontics, and
defeasible reasoning, in: D. M. Gabbay, J. Horty, X. Parent, R. van der Meyden, L. van der Torre
(Eds.), Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Reasoning, volume 2, College Publications,
London, 2021, pp. 655–760.
[9] T. F. Gordon, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, Rules and norms: Requirements for rule interchange
languages in the legal domain, Number 5858 in LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 282–296.
[10] H. Lam, M. Hashmi, Enabling reasoning with LegalRuleML, Theory Practice of Logic Programming
19 (2019) 1–26.
[11] G. Antoniou, D. Billington, G. Governatori, M. J. Maher, On the modeling and analysis of regula-
tions, in: Proceedings of the Australian Conference Information Systems, 1999, pp. 20–29.
[12] G. Governatori, Representing business contracts in RuleML, International Journal of Cooperative
Information Systems 14 (2005) 181–216.
[13] M. Dastani, G. Governatori, A. Rotolo, L. van der Torre, Programming cognitive agents in defeasible
logic, in: G. Sutcliffe, A. Voronkov (Eds.), LPAR 2005, volume 3835 of LNAI, Springer, Heidelberg,
2005, pp. 621–636.
[14] J. Dimyadi, G. Governatori, R. Amor, Evaluating legaldocml and legalruleml as a candidate standard
for sharing normative information in the aec/fm domain, in: F. Bosché, I. Brilakis, R. Sacks (Eds.),
LC3 2017: Volume I Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Computing in Construction (JC3),
2017, pp. 639–646.
[15] H. Bhuiyan, G. Governatori, A. Rakotonirainy, A. Bond, Traffic rules compliance checking of
automated vehicle maneuvers, Artificial Intelligence and Law 32 (2024) 1–56.
[16] I. A. Amantea, L. Robaldo, E. Sulis, G. Governatori, G. Boella, Business process modelling in
healthcare and compliance management: a logical framework, Journal of Applied Logics—IfCoLog
Journal of Logics and their Applications 9 (2022).
[17] G. Governatori, P. Casanovas, L. de Koker, On the formal representation of the australian spent
conviction scheme, in: V. Gutiérrez Basulto, T. Kliegr, A. Soylu, M. Giese, D. Roman (Eds.), Rules
and Reasoning, volume 12173 of LNCS, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020, pp. 177–185.
[18] M. Hashmi, G. Governatori, M. T. Wynn, Normative requirements for regulatory compliance: An
abstract formal framework, Information Systems Frontiers 18 (2016) 429–455.
[19] G. Governatori, F. Olivieri, A. Rotolo, S. Scannapieco, Computing strong and weak permis-
sions in defeasible logic, Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2013) 799–829. doi:10.1007/
s10992- 013- 9295- 1 .
[20] G. Brewka, T. Eiter, M. Truszczyński, Answer set programming at a glance, Communications of
the ACM 54 (2011) 92–103. doi:10.1145/2043174.2043195 .
[21] M. Palmirani, G. Governatori, T. Athan, H. Boley, A. Paschke, A. Wyner, LegalRuleML Core Speci-
fication Version 1.0, OASIS Committee Specification 2, OASIS, 2020. URL: https://docs.oasis-open.
org/legalruleml/legalruleml-core-spec/v1.0/cs02/legalruleml-core-spec-v1.0-cs02.html.
[22] T. Athan, H. Boley, G. Governatori, M. Palmirani, A. Paschke, A. Wyner, Oasis legalruleml, in:
E. Francesconi, B. Verheij (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, New York, 2013, pp. 3–12. doi:10.1145/2514601.2514603 .
[23] G. Governatori, An ASP implementation of defeasible deontic logic, Künstliche Intelligenz (2024).
doi:10.1007/s13218- 024- 00854- 9 .
[24] M. Gebser, R. Kaminski, B. Kaufmann, T. Schaub, Answer Set Solving in Practice, Synthesis
Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2012.
doi:10.1007/978- 3- 031- 01561- 8 .
[25] L. Gierl, B. Pollwein, G. Heyde, H. Kurt, Knowledge-based scheduling of duty rosters for physicians,
Medical Informatics 18 (1993) 355–366.
[26] A. Caprara, F. Focacci, E. Lamma, P. Mello, M. Milano, P. Toth, D. Vigo, Integrating constraint
logic programming and operations research techniques for the crew rostering problem, Software
– Practice and Experience 28 (1998) 49–76.
[27] S. Rosenberg, Programming medical rosters in Prolog, Medical Informatics 13 (1988) 187–198.
[28] G. B. Lamont, H. Haddad, G. A. Papadopoulos, B. Panda, H. Li, A. Lim, B. Rodrigues, A hybrid
AI approach for nurse rostering problem, Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Applied
computing (2003) 730–735.
[29] F. Morgado, R. L. Saldanha, J. Roussado, L. Albino, E. Morgado, J. P. Martins, Using AI Local Search
to Improve an OR Optimizer, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 26
(2012) 2237–2244.
[30] C. Dodaro, G. Galatà, M. Maratea, I. Porro, An ASP-based framework for operating room scheduling,
Intelligenza Artificiale 13 (2019) 63–77.
[31] C. Dodaro, G. Galatà, M. K. Khan, M. Maratea, I. Porro, Operating Room (Re)Scheduling with Bed
Management via ASP, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 22 (2021) 229–253.
[32] C. N. Gross, J. O. Brunner, M. Blobner, Hospital physicians can’t get no long-term satisfaction –
an indicator for fairness in preference fulfillment on duty schedules, Health Care Management
Science 22 (2019) 691–708.
[33] K. O’Callahan, S. Sitters, M. Petersen, ‘You make the call’: Improving radiology staff scheduling
with AI-generated self-rostering in a medical imaging department, Radiography 30 (2024) 862–868.
doi:10.1016/j.radi.2024.03.014 .
[34] S. Agrawal, J. Turner, Using AI to build the foundation of better capacity management, Management
in Healthcare: A Peer-Reviewed Journal 7 (2023) 194.
[35] M. Tuffaha, M. R. Perello-Marin, Adoption Factors of Artificial intelligence in Human Resources
Management, Future of Business Administration 1 (2022) 1–12. doi:10.33422/fba.v1i1.140 .
[36] I. Amantea., M. Quaranta., Eco-sustainability and efficiency of healthcare complex systems, in:
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Simulation and Modeling Methodologies,
Technologies and Applications - SIMULTECH, INSTICC, SciTePress, 2024, pp. 423–430. doi:10.
5220/0012857400003758 .