4.6 Review

Lean, Six Sigma, and Simulation: Evidence from Healthcare Interventions

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su142416849

关键词

lean; six sigma; simulation; industry 4; 0; patient flow; wait time; length of stay

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the Industry 4.0 era, dual interventions in healthcare services that integrate lean and six sigma primarily focus on improving patient flow, resulting in positive outcomes related to length of stay, waiting time, and turnaround time. However, there is a lack of reported evidence on the impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, staff wellbeing, resource use, and savings.
In the Industry 4.0 era, healthcare services have experienced more dual interventions that integrate lean and six sigma with simulation modeling. This systematic review, which focuses on evidence-based practice and complies with the PRISMA guidelines, aims to evaluate the effects of these dual interventions on healthcare services and provide insights into which paradigms and tools produce the best results. Our review identified 4018 studies, of which 39 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected. The predominantly positive results reported in 73 outcomes were mostly related to patient flow: length of stay, waiting time, and turnaround time. In contrast, there is little reported evidence of the impact on patient health and satisfaction, staff wellbeing, resource use, and savings. Discrete event simulation stands out in 74% of the interventions as the main simulation paradigm. Meanwhile, 66% of the interventions utilized lean, followed by lean-six sigma with 28%. Our findings confirm that dual interventions focus mainly on utilization and access to healthcare services, particularly on either patient flow problems or problems concerning the allocation of resources; however, most interventions lack evidence of implementation. Therefore, this study promotes further research and encourages practical applications including the use of Industry 4.0 technologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据