The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Technology Integration Performance Assessment Using Lean Principles in Health Care
Abstract
This study assesses the impact of an automated infusion system (AIS) integration at a positron emission tomography (PET) center based on "lean thinking" principles. The authors propose a systematic measurement system that evaluates improvement in terms of the "8 wastes." This adaptation to the health care context consisted of performance measurement before and after integration of AIS in terms of time, utilization of resources, amount of materials wasted/saved, system variability, distances traveled, and worker strain. The authors' observations indicate that AIS stands to be very effective in a busy PET department, such as the one in Moffitt Cancer Center, owing to its accuracy, pace, and reliability, especially after the necessary adjustments are made to reduce or eliminate the source of errors. This integration must be accompanied by a process reengineering exercise to realize the full potential of AIS in reducing waste and improving patient care and worker satisfaction.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“review of work processes [38,46,47,48,49]”
From Lean Healthcare Tools for Processes Evaluation: An Integrative Review. (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“In contrast, a study found that after implementing changes, there was an increase in costs [47].”
From Lean Healthcare Tools for Processes Evaluation: An Integrative Review. (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“Three studies [39,47,59] are noteworthy as they present a reduction in the distance traveled by professionals as a result of their interventions.”
From Lean Healthcare Tools for Processes Evaluation: An Integrative Review. (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Mazzocato P, 2010, Qual Saf Health Care, 19, 376
- 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1553-7250(10)36081-8 · DOI
- Womack J, Jones D. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York, NY: Free Press; 2007:352.
- Morris L, 2004, Bus B Rev, 21, 1
- 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.11.027 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.011 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.injury.2010.11.024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ienj.2010.02.003 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2006.00872.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S1553-7250(05)31032-4 · DOI
- 10.1309/AJCPD1MSTIVZI0PZ · DOI
- 10.1177/1062860613483354 · DOI
- 10.1177/1062860612474062 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.11.108 · DOI
- Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis; 2011:31-46.
- Freivalds A, Niebel B. Methods, Standards and Work Design. 12th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math; 2008:405-575.
- Rother M, Shook J, Womack J, Jones D. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add Value and Eliminate MUDA. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute; 2009:5-20. Version 1.
- Liker J. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles From the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. 1st ed. Ipswich, MA: McGraw-Hill Education; 2003:88-89.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lean Healthcare Tools for Processes Evaluation: An Integrative Review.
de Barros, L. B., Bassi, L. D. C., Caldas, L. P., Sarantopoulos, A., Zeferino, E. B. B., Minatogawa, V., & Gasparino, R. C. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18147389 · Cited by 90
Metadata
- Authors
- Rico, F., Yalcin, A., & Eikman, E. A.
- Affiliations
- University of South Florida (US)
- Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
- Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
- ORCID
- Rico, Florentino
- Venue
- American Journal of Medical Quality
- Published
- 2014-05-30
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 374-381
- ISSN
- 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-824X
- OpenAlex
- W2134375763
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 2.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Medical Quality (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
- Keywords
- lean thinking, waste reduction, performance measurement, process reengineering, positron emission tomography, quality of care, error reduction
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Care Facilities, Infusion Pumps, Technology, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Satisfaction, Efficiency, Organizational, Total Quality Management, Positron-Emission Tomography
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
