3.9 Review

Lean Six Sigma and anesthesia

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE ANESTESIOLOGIA
Volume 69, Issue 5, Pages 502-509

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2018.12.012

Keywords

Lean Six Sigma; Management; Anesthesiology; Operating room

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Demands for health services have been growing sharply. Consequently, the costs of the institutions for their operational maintenance and investments also increase. The challenge of hospital management is to achieve standards of quality and safety for patients, increasing their productivity and minimizing costs. Lean Six Sigma is a well-structured methodology that aims to eliminate waste and activities that do not add value, focused on reducing process variation, eliminating the causes of the defect, and improving performance. As a result, cost reduction, higher quality, and customer satisfaction are observed. Objectives: To define Lean Six Sigma methodology and search references in the literature on its use in Health and specifically in Anesthesiology. Content: How often the waste of medicines, materials and time (rework), as well as the errors that happen in the day-to-day of the anesthesiologist are reported. Anesthesiologists must know the impact of their professional practice, with the purpose of making more appropriate choices, thus reducing the damage to the environment, improving overall health, and reducing costs with health care. The use of the Lean Six Sigma methodology is suggested to make the anesthesia field more sustainable, improving the processes without prejudice to the patient. Conclusion: Lean Six Sigma methodology is a new business management strategy in the health area. It is perfectly inserted in the current context of quality and safety to the patient; therefore, relevant in the practice of anesthesiology. (C) 2019 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available