Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 627

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature

Mazzocato, P., Savage, C., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., Thor, J.·2010·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To understand how lean thinking has been put into practice in healthcare and how it has worked. DESIGN: A realist literature review. Data sources The authors systematically searched for articles in PubMed, Web of Science and Business Source Premier (January 1998 to February 2008) and then added articles through a snowball approach. REVIEW METHODS: The authors included empirical studies of lean thinking applications in healthcare and excluded those articles that did not influence patient care, or reported hybrid approaches. The authors conducted a thematic analysis based on data collected using an original abstraction form. Based on this, they articulated interactions between context, lean interventions, mechanisms and outcomes. RESULTS: The authors reviewed 33 articles and found a wide range of lean applications. The articles describe initial implementation stages and emphasise technical aspects. All articles report positive results. The authors found common contextual aspects which interact with different components of the lean interventions and trigger four different change mechanisms: understand processes to generate shared understanding; organise and design for effectiveness and efficiency; improve error detection to increase awareness and process reliability; and collaborate to systematically solve problems to enhance continual improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Lean thinking has been applied successfully in a wide variety of healthcare settings. While lean theory emphasises a holistic view, most cases report narrower technical applications with limited organisational reach. To better realise the potential benefits, healthcare organisations need to directly involve senior management, work across functional divides, pursue value creation for patients and other customers, and nurture a long-term view of continual improvement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.2009.037986

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 627

Metadata

Authors
Mazzocato, P., Savage, C., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., & Thor, J.
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2010-08-19
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
376-382
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2130105625
Cited by
627
References
6
FWCI
37.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.2009.037986
The paper
Mazzocato, P., Savage, C., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., & Thor, J. (2010). Lean thinking in healthcare: a realist review of the literature. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2009.037986

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.