How to Use Lean Thinking for the Optimization of Clinical Pathways: A Systematic Review and a Proposed Framework to Analyze Pathways on a System Level.

Lean Thinking and clinical pathways are commonly used concepts to improve healthcare. However, little is known on how to use Lean Thinking for the optimization of pathways or the quantification of both concepts. This study aims to create a framework to analyze pathways with Lean Thinking on a system level, by quantifying the seven wastes, flow and pull. A systematic literature review was performed. Inclusion criteria were the focus of the article on a well-defined group of patients and studied a pathway optimization with Lean Thinking. Data were extracted on measured outcomes, type of intervention and type of researched pathway. Thirty-six articles were included. No articles described the implementation of the Lean Thinking philosophy or studied the development of their people and partners ("4 P" model). Most articles used process optimization tools or problem-solving tools. The majority of the studies focused on process measures. The measures found in the review were used as input for our suggested framework to identify and quantify wastes, flow, and pull in a clinical pathway. The proposed framework can be used to create an overview of the improvement potential of a pathway or to analyze the level of improvement after an enhancement is introduced to a pathway. Further research is needed to study the use of the suggested quantifications.

The Intervention Selection Toolbox to improve patient-relevant outcomes: an implementation and qualitative evaluation study in colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The concept of value-based healthcare is being used worldwide to improve healthcare. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was developed to bridge the gap of value-based healthcare, between insights in outcomes and actual quality improvement initiatives. In this study we aimed to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox in daily practice of a quality improvement team in a hospital setting. METHODS: A methodological triangulation design was used. The Intervention Selection Toolbox was used by a multidisciplinary quality improvement team for colorectal cancer care in a large teaching hospital. In-depth semi-structured interviews, focusing on the key elements of process evaluation, were conducted after implementation with representatives of the quality improvement team to evaluate the use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox. Quantitative data regarding improvement initiatives and degree of implementation was also collected. RESULTS: The use of the Intervention Selection Toolbox initially resulted in 80 potential quality improvement initiatives. Eventually, two high potential improvement initiatives were selected. Some components of the toolbox were successfully implemented in daily practice, although 'standard monitoring' and 'causal chain analysis' proved more difficult to implement. Qualitative analysis was performed with ten members of the multidisciplinary team before thematic saturation occurred. Interviewed members had a wide range in characteristics: age 28-61 years, clinical experience 6-38 years and educational attainment from vocational program to academic doctorate. The Interviews showed added value in the use of the toolbox, but identified time and organizational management as restricting factors. CONCLUSIONS: The Intervention Selection Toolbox is useful to systematically identify improvement initiatives with impact on health outcomes that matter to patients. However, before implementation organizational structure should be optimized to maximize success and efficiency on integration of the Intervention Selection Toolbox.

Mapping the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare in the 15 years following its introduction (2006-2021): a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to systematically map the extent, range and nature of research activity on value-based healthcare (VBHC), and to identify research gaps. DESIGN: A scoping review with an additional cited reference search was conducted, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. DATA SOURCES: The search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible articles mentioned VBHC or value with reference to the work of Porter or provided a definition of VBHC or value. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently extracted using a data extraction form. Two independent reviewers double extracted data from 10% of the articles. Data of the remaining articles (90%) were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The strategic agenda of Porter and Lee was used to categorise the included articles. RESULTS: The searches yielded a total of 27,931 articles, of which 1,242 were analysed. Most articles were published in North America. Most articles described an application of VBHC by measuring outcomes and costs (agenda item 2). The other agenda items were far less frequently described or implemented. Most of these articles were conceptual, meaning that nothing was actually changed or implemented. CONCLUSION: The number of publications increased steadily after the introduction of VBHC in 2006. Almost one-fifth of the articles could not be categorised in one of the items of the strategic agenda, which may lead to the conclusion that the current strategic agenda could be extended. In addition, a practical roadmap or guideline to implement VBHC is still lacking. Future research could fill this gap by specifically studying the effectiveness of VBHC in day-to-day clinical practice.