Cited by 23Central Venous Catheters and HemodialysisHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationHealthcare Quality and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Use of Lean Six Sigma methodology shows reduction of inpatient waiting time for peripherally inserted central catheter placement

Hynes, J.P., Murray, A.S., Murray, O.M., Eustace, S.K., Gilchrist, S., Dolan, A., Lawler, L.P.·2019·Clinical Radiology

Abstract

Aim The aim of this study was to assess the use of Lean Six Sigma methodology to improve the turnaround time (TAT) for inpatient peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement. Materials and methods Value stream mapping was used to analyse the workflow process for inpatient PICC placement and to divide it into its component parts. Unnecessary steps were eliminated and variation minimised in the remaining processes. The TAT for PICC line placement was recorded for the 6 months prior to implementation of changes, and subsequently, at the 6-month and 2-year follow-up points. Results Prior to implementing the changes, the mean TAT for PICC line placement was 3.74±3.28 days (95% confidence interval [CI]=3.3-4.17). Six months after implementation, the mean TAT was 1.89±1.82 days (95% CI=1.72-2.06, p<0.0001). The reduction was sustained such that at 2 years post-implementation the mean TAT was 1.88±1.87 days (95% CI=1.78-1.99, p<0.0001). This was achieved despite a 13.8% increase in overall interventional radiological activity. Conclusion By applying Lean Six Sigma methodology to the complex multifactorial processes involved from ordering a PICC to its final insertion, it was possible to identify areas for improvement and to introduce simple, effective measures that resulted in a significant sustained decrease in the TAT without additional resources.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crad.2019.04.022

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. de Koning, 2006, Lean Six Sigma in healthcare, J Health Qual, 28, 4, 10.1111/j.1945-1474.2006.tb00596.x · DOI
  2. Karstoft, 2011, Is Lean Management implementable in a department of radiology?, Insights Imaging, 2, 267, 10.1007/s13244-010-0044-5 · DOI
  3. Fairbanks, 2007, Using Six Sigma and lean methodologies to improve OR throughput, AORN J, 86, 73, 10.1016/j.aorn.2007.06.011 · DOI
  4. Amaratunga, 2016, Systematic review of the application of Lean and Six Sigma methodologies in radiology, J Am Coll Radiol, 13, 1088, 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.033 · DOI
  5. Bahensky, 2005, Lean Sigma—will it work for healthcare?, J Health Inf Manag, 19, 39
  6. Bucci, 2011, A lean Six Sigma journey in radiology, Radiol Manage, 33, 27
  7. O'Brien, 2018, Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and potential cost savings and shortened bed stays in an acute hospital setting, Ir Med J, 111, 670
  8. White, 2017, Applying systems engineering reduces radiology transport cycle times in the emergency department, West J Emerg Med, 18, 410, 10.5811/westjem.2016.12.32457 · DOI
  9. Chrysanthopoulou, 2007, Trends and future needs in clinical radiology: insights from an academic medical center, Health Policy, 80, 194, 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.03.007 · DOI
  10. Lutz, 2008, The coming acceleration of global population ageing, Nature, 451, 716, 10.1038/nature06516 · DOI
  11. Sedgwick, 2015, Understanding the hawthorne effect, BMJ, 351, h4672, 10.1136/bmj.h4672 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hynes, J. P., Murray, A. S., Murray, O. M., Eustace, S. K., Gilchrist, S., Dolan, A., & Lawler, L. P.
Affiliations
Mater Misericordiae University Hospital (IE)
Corresponding author
Hynes, J.P.
Venue
Clinical Radiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
74
Issue
9
Pages
733.e5-733.e9
ISSN
0009-9260 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946172134
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5
FWCI
5.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Central Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
Lean Six Sigma, peripherally inserted central catheter, turnaround time, value stream mapping, workflow improvement, interventional radiology, process variability reduction
MeSH terms
Catheterization, Central Venous, Catheterization, Peripheral, Female, Humans, Inpatients, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Waiting Lists, Radiography, Interventional, Total Quality Management, Workflow

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review