↓ Skip to main content

Guiding Inpatient Quality Improvement: A Systematic Review of Lean and Six Sigma

Overview of attention for article published in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
257 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Guiding Inpatient Quality Improvement: A Systematic Review of Lean and Six Sigma
Published in
Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, December 2010
DOI 10.1016/s1553-7250(10)36081-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin M. Glasgow, Jill R. Scott-Caziewell, Peter J. Kaboli

Abstract

Two popular quality improvement (QI) approaches in health care are Lean and Six Sigma. Hospitals continue to adopt these QI approaches-or the hybrid Lean Sigma approach-with little knowledge on how well they produce sustainable improvements. A systematic literature review was conducted to determine whether Lean, Six Sigma, or Lean Sigma have been effectively used to create and sustain improvements in the acute care setting. Databases were searched for articles published in the health care, business, and engineering literatures. Study inclusion criteria required identification of a Six Sigma, Lean, or Lean Sigma project; QI efforts focused on hospitalized patients; descriptions of project improvements; and reported results. Depending on the quality of data reported, articles were classified as summary reports, pre-post observational studies, or time-series reports. Database searches identified 539 potential articles. After review of titles, abstracts, and full text, 47 articles met inclusion criteria--10 articles summarized multiple projects, 12 reported Lean projects, 20 reported Six Sigma projects, and 5 reported Lean Sigma projects. Generally, the studies provided limited data, with only 15 articles providing any sort of follow-up data; of the 15, only 3 report a follow-up period greater than two years. Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Sigma as QI approaches can aid institutions in tackling a wide variety of problems encountered in acute care. However, the true impact of these approaches is difficult to judge, given that the lack of rigorous evaluation or clearly sustained improvements provides little evidence supporting broad adoption. There is still a need for future work that will improve the evidence base for understanding more about QI approaches and how to achieve sustainable improvement.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Unknown 249 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 15 6%
Student > Bachelor 15 6%
Other 54 21%
Unknown 73 28%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 20%
Business, Management and Accounting 38 15%
Engineering 32 12%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Other 28 11%
Unknown 83 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,600,801
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
#357
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,419
of 254,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 254,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.