Application of Lean Six Sigma for patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Hamilton Health Sciences experience
Abstract
Most patients with symptomatic acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the leading cause of death in western industrialized nations, use the emergency department (ED) as their point of entry. Yet, one identified barrier to early recognition of patients with AMI is ED overcrowding. In this paper, the author presents a quality improvement model that applies Lean Six Sigma guidelines to the clinical setting.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Three studies combined Lean with Six Sigma, and another also borrowed from many other manufacturing philosophies.
“Three studies [69, 82, 83] combined Lean with Six Sigma, a quality improvement method based on minimizing variability, while another also “borrowed from many other manufacturing philosophies” [71].”
From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [69]
Not every study adequately reported pre- and post metrics; in some cases measures of success were taken but not reported, patient satisfaction was not described, statistical tests were not used, or no numerical data were given.
“Fourth, not every study adequately reported pre- and post metrics. In some cases, “measures of success” (e.g., door-to-balloon time, door-to-needle-time) were taken but not reported [69]. In others, measures such as patient satisfaction were not described [83], statistical tests were not used to test pre-post differences [20, 75], or no numerical data were given to support reported changes [83]”
From Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review (2011) · cites this paper as [69]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lean Thinking in Emergency Departments: A Critical Review
Holden, R. J. (2011) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.001 · Cited by 516 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aldarrab, A., Fernandes, C., Velianou, J., Natarajan, M., Zimmerman, R., Smith, R., Smith, T., & Pickering, J.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Venue
- Healthcare Quarterly
- Publisher
- Longwoods Publishing
- Published
- 2006-01-15
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-61
- ISSN
- 1710-2774 (ISSN-L)
- 1929-6347
- OpenAlex
- W2076695698
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Healthcare Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
- Keywords
- Lean Six Sigma, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, acute myocardial infarction, emergency department overcrowding, quality improvement, emergency department workflow
- MeSH terms
- Crowding, Electric Countershock, Electrocardiography, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Institutional Management Teams, Myocardial Infarction, Ontario, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Software Design, Time Factors, Thrombolytic Therapy, Process Assessment, Health Care, Models, Organizational, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Benchmarking
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
