Background and objectives

The United States has an underperforming health care system on both cost and quality criteria in comparison with other developed countries. One approach to improving system performance on both cost and quality is to use the Lean Management System based on the Shingo principles originally developed by Toyota in Japan. Our objective was to examine the association between hospital use of the Lean Management System and evidence-based or recommended quality improvement care management processes.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis of data from 223 hospitals that responded to both the 2017 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems and the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals was conducted.

Results

Controlling for hospital organizational and market characteristics, the number of years using Lean was positively associated with use of electronic health record-based decision support, use of quality-focused information management, use of evidence-based guidelines, and support for care transitions at the P < .05 level. The degree of education and training in Lean methods and processes was also positively associated (P < .05) with greater support for care transitions. The number of years using Lean was marginally associated with screening for clinical conditions at the P < .10 level. There was an unexpected negative association between education and training scores and screening for clinical conditions.

Conclusions

Greater experience in using the Lean Management System is positively associated with several evidence-based and/or recommended quality improvement care management processes.

Health-care organizations around the world are striving to achieve transformational performance improvement, often through adopting process improvement methodologies such as lean management. Indeed, lean management has been implemented in hospitals in many countries. But despite a shared methodology and the potential benefit of benchmarking lean implementation and its effects on hospital performance, cross-national lean benchmarking is rare. Health-care organizations in different countries operate in very different contexts, including different health-care system models, and these differences may be perceived as limiting the ability of improvers to benchmark lean implementation and related organizational performance. However, no empirical research is available on the international relevance and applicability of lean implementation and hospital performance measures. To begin understanding the opportunities and limitations related to cross-national benchmarking of lean in hospitals, we conducted a cross-national case study of the relevance and applicability of measures of lean implementation in hospitals and hospital performance. We report an exploratory case study of the relevance of lean implementation measures and the applicability of hospital performance measures using quantitative comparisons of data from Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS) Helsinki University Hospital in Finland and a sample of 75 large academic hospitals in the USA. The relevance of lean-related measures was high across the two countries: almost 90% of the items developed for a US survey were relevant and available from HUS. A majority of the US-based measures for financial performance (66.7%), service provision/utilization (100.0%) and service provision/care processes (60.0%) were available from HUS. Differences in patient satisfaction measures prevented comparisons between HUS and the USA. Of 18 clinical outcome measures, only four (22%) were not comparable. Clinical outcome measures were less affected by the differences in health-care system models than measures related to service provision and financial performance. Lean implementation measures are highly relevant in health-care organizations operating in the USA and Finland, as is the applicability of a variety of performance improvement measures. Cross-national benchmarking in lean healthcare is feasible, but a careful assessment of contextual factors, including the health-care system model, and their impact on the applicability and relevance of chosen benchmarking measures is necessary. The differences between the US and Finnish health-care system models is most clearly reflected in financial performance measures and care process measures.

Background

Reliable benchmarking in Lean healthcare requires widely relevant and applicable domains for outcome metrics and careful attention to contextual levels. These levels have been poorly defined and no framework to facilitate performance benchmarking exists.

Methods

We systematically searched the Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify original articles reporting benchmarking on different contextual levels in Lean healthcare and critically appraised the articles. Scarcity and heterogeneity of articles prevented quantitative meta-analyses. We developed a new, widely applicable conceptual framework for benchmarking drawing on the principles of ten commonly used healthcare quality frameworks and four value statements, and suggest an agenda for future research on benchmarking in Lean healthcare.

Results

We identified 22 articles on benchmarking in Lean healthcare on 4 contextual levels: intra-organizational (6 articles), regional (4), national (10), and international (2). We further categorized the articles by the domains in the proposed conceptual framework: patients (6), employed and affiliated staff (2), costs (2), and service provision (16). After critical appraisal, only one fifth of the articles were categorized as high quality.

Conclusions

When making evidence-informed decisions based on current scarce literature on benchmarking in healthcare, leaders and managers should carefully consider the influence of context. The proposed conceptual framework may facilitate performance benchmarking and spreading best practices in Lean healthcare. Future research on benchmarking in Lean healthcare should include international benchmarking, defining essential factors influencing Lean initiatives on different levels of context; patient-centered benchmarking; and system-level benchmarking with a balanced set of outcomes and quality measures.

Background

Lean management is growing in popularity in the healthcare sector worldwide, yet healthcare organizations are struggling with assessing the maturity of their Lean implementation and monitoring its change over time. Most existing methods for such assessments are time consuming, require site visits by external consultants, and lack frontline involvement. The original Lean Healthcare Implementation Self-Assessment Instrument (LHISI) was developed by the Center for Lean Engagement and Research (CLEAR), University of California, Berkeley as a Lean principles-based survey instrument that avoids the above problems. We validated the original LHISI in the context of Finnish healthcare.

Methods

The original HISI survey was sent over a secure organizational email system to the over 26,000 employees of the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa in March 2020. The data were randomly split with one part used to carry out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other for testing the resulting model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Results

A total of 6073 employees responded to the LHISI survey, for an overall response rate of 23%. The results indicated that the 43 items used in the original LHISI can be reduced to 25 items, and these items measure a five-dimensional model of the progress of Lean implementation: leadership, commitment, standard work, communication, and daily management system. In comparison with a single-factor model, the fit measures for the 5-factor model were better: smaller X², larger comparative fit index (CFI), smaller root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and smaller standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).

Conclusions

The 25 item LHISI is valid and feasible to use in the context of Finnish healthcare. The LHISI allows the organization to self-monitor the progress of its Lean implementation and provides the leadership with actionable knowledge to guide the path towards Lean maturity across the organization. Our findings encourage further studies on the adoption and validation of the LHISI in healthcare organizations worldwide.

Identification of sequence variants robustly associated with predisposition to diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has the potential to provide insights into the pathophysiological mechanisms responsible. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of DKD in type 2 diabetes (T2D) using eight complementary dichotomous and quantitative DKD phenotypes: the principal dichotomous analysis involved 5,717 T2D subjects, 3,345 with DKD. Promising association signals were evaluated in up to 26,827 subjects with T2D (12,710 with DKD). A combined T1D+T2D GWAS was performed using complementary data available for subjects with T1D, which, with replication samples, involved up to 40,340 subjects with diabetes (18,582 with DKD). Analysis of specific DKD phenotypes identified a novel signal near GABRR1 (rs9942471, P = 4.5 × 10^-8) associated with microalbuminuria in European T2D case subjects. However, no replication of this signal was observed in Asian subjects with T2D or in the equivalent T1D analysis. There was only limited support, in this substantially enlarged analysis, for association at previously reported DKD signals, except for those at UMOD and PRKAG2, both associated with estimated glomerular filtration rate. We conclude that, despite challenges in addressing phenotypic heterogeneity, access to increased sample sizes will continue to provide more robust inference regarding risk variant discovery for DKD.