Elina Reponen1,2, Thomas G Rundall3, Stephen M Shortell3, Janet C Blodgett3, Angelica Juarez3, Ritva Jokela4, Markku Mäkijärvi4, Paulus Torkki5. 1. Center for Lean Engagement and Research in Healthcare, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA. elina.reponen@hus.fi. 2. HUS Helsinki University Hospital, P.O.Box 760, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. elina.reponen@hus.fi. 3. Center for Lean Engagement and Research in Healthcare, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA. 4. HUS Helsinki University Hospital, P.O.Box 760, 00029, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
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: 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.
Authors: Robert J Cerfolio; Dana Ferrari-Light; Christine Ren-Fielding; George Fielding; Nissa Perry; Annette Rabinovich; Mark Saraceni; Maureen Fitzpatrick; Sudheer Jain; H Leon Pachter Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Marian J Vermeulen; Therese A Stukel; Astrid Guttmann; Brian H Rowe; Merrick Zwarenstein; Brian Golden; Amit Nigam; Geoff Anderson; Robert S Bell; Michael J Schull Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ellen J Van Vliet; Eelco Bredenhoff; Walter Sermeus; Lucas M Kop; Johannes C A Sol; Wim H Van Harten Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Dorine J Pluimers; Ellen J van Vliet; Anne Gh Niezink; Martijn S van Mourik; Eric H Eddes; Michel W Wouters; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Wim H van Harten Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2015-04-09
Authors: Elina Reponen; Thomas G Rundall; Stephen M Shortell; Janet C Blodgett; Ritva Jokela; Markku Mäkijärvi; Paulus Torkki Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.038