Dataset Information

Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Healthcare services are facing challenges in increasing their efficiency, quality of care, and coping with surges in demand. To this end, some hospitals have implemented lean healthcare. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of lean healthcare (LH) interventions on inpatient care and determine whether patient flow and efficiency outcomes improve. The review was performed according to PRISMA. We used six databases to search for studies published from 2002 to 2019. Out of 5732 studies, 39 measuring one or more defined outcomes were included. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was measured in 23 studies, 16 of which reported a reduction, turnover time (TOT) decreased in six out of eight studies, while the turnaround time (TAT) and on-time starts (OTS) improved in all five and seven studies, respectively. Moreover, eight out of nine studies reported an earlier discharge time, and the boarding time decreased in all four cases. Meanwhile, the readmission rate did not increase in all nine studies. Lastly, staff and patient satisfaction improved in all eight studies. Our findings show that by focusing on reducing non-value-added activities, LH contributed to improving patient flow and efficiency within inpatient care.

SUBMITTER: Zepeda-Lugo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7432925 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review.

Zepeda-Lugo Carlos C Tlapa Diego D Baez-Lopez Yolanda Y Limon-Romero Jorge J Ontiveros Sinue S Perez-Sanchez Armando A Tortorella Guilherme G

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200804 15

Healthcare services are facing challenges in increasing their efficiency, quality of care, and coping with surges in demand. To this end, some hospitals have implemented lean healthcare. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of lean healthcare (LH) interventions on inpatient care and determine whether patient flow and efficiency outcomes improve. The review was performed according to PRISMA. We used six databases to search for studies published from 2002 to 2019. Out of 57 ...[more]

PMID: 32759705

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.Methods and findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.ConclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of evidence-based healthcare interventions is challenging, with a 17-year gap identified between the generation of evidence and its implementation in routine practice. Although contextual factors such as culture and leadership are strong influences for successful implementation, context remains poorly understood, with a lack of consensus regarding how it should be defined and captured within research. This study addresses this issue by providing insight into how context is defined and assessed within healthcare implementation science literature and develops a definition to enable effective measurement of context.MethodsMedline, PsychInfo, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched. Articles were included if studies were empirical and evaluated context during the implementation of a healthcare initiative. These English language articles were published in the previous 10 years and included a definition and assessment of context. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsThree thousand and twenty-one search records were obtained of which 64 met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Studies used a variety of definitions in terms of the level of detail and explanation provided. Some listed contextual factors (n = 19) while others documented sub-elements of a framework that included context (n = 19). The remaining studies provide a rich definition of general context (n = 11) or aspects of context (n = 15). The Alberta Context Tool was the most frequently used quantitative measure (n = 4), while qualitative papers used a range of frameworks to evaluate context. Mixed methods studies used diverse approaches; some used frameworks to inform the methods chosen while others used quantitative measures to inform qualitative data collection. Most studies (n = 50) applied the chosen measure to all aspects of study design with a majority analysing context at an individual level (n = 29).ConclusionsThis review highlighted inconsistencies in defining and measuring context which emphasised the need to develop an operational definition. By providing this consensus, improvements in implementation processes may result, as a common understanding will help researchers to appropriately account for context in research.

Dataset Information

Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Assessing the Impact of Lean Healthcare on Inpatient Care: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets