3.8 Article

Lean Six-Sigma: the means to healing an ailing NHS?

Journal

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/IJQRM-01-2017-0006

Keywords

Performance; Six-Sigma; Healthcare; Quality; Productivity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine England's Accident and Emergency (A&E) arm of the National Health Service (NHS). It considers the positive impact that Lean has had and Six-Sigma can have in A&E departments to improve the quality and reliability of the service offered, in an area that is facing performance challenges. Design/methodology/approach Independent variables average monthly temperature data (degrees Celsius) obtained from the Met Office and weekly A&E data, patient volume is analysed alongside the dependent variable, the percentage of patients seen in 4h or less. Findings The model produced a robust positive impact when Lean Six-Sigma is adopted, increasing the likelihood of A&E dependents meeting their performance objective to see and treat patients in 4h or less. Research limitations/implications Further variables such as staffing levels, A&E admission type should be considered in future studies. Additionally, it would add further clarity to analyse hospitals and trusts individually, to gauge which are struggling. Practical implications Should the NHS further its understanding and adoption of Lean Six-Sigma, it is believed this could have significant improvements in productivity, patient care and cost reduction. Social implications Productivity improvements will allow the NHS to do more with an equal amount of funding, therefore improving capacity and patient care. Originality/value Through observing A&E and its ability to treat patients in a timely fashion it is clear the NHS is struggling to meet its performance objectives, the recommendation of Six-Sigma in A&E should improve the reliability and quality of care offered to patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available