Policy Points This study highlights health care leaders' use of lean management practices to advance equity and scale initiatives supporting the delivery of high-quality care for all patients. As a next step in this work, there is a need to develop new measurement systems with clearly defined performance metrics that ensure accountability to equity standards. Standards can be reinforced by government agencies, professional associations, and accrediting bodies. Examples include building equity-specific metrics into Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Advantage STAR ratings, American Medical Group Association and America's Physician Groups recognition programs, National Committee for Quality Assurance certification criteria for health plans, and Joint Commission accreditation for hospitals.ContextLean management is a sociotechnical approach to quality improvement that aims for consistency in work processes and outcomes. This can be leveraged to reduce inequities by ensuring delivery of high-quality care to meet the needs of patients with diverse backgrounds. Despite recent efforts in the field, there is limited study on how managers implement health equity and workforce diversity goals as strategies to improve patient care. Given the important role of leadership in fostering workplace culture, we examined leader activities and specifically their use of lean management practices to support equity initiatives in health care.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 67 leaders ranging from C-suite executives to frontline managers in five US hospital-health systems. Interview transcripts were analyzed and validated via parallel coding, yielding an interrater agreement of 92.6%. We identified cross-cutting themes on how leaders use lean methods to promote equity in care settings, and elicited insights regarding barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for continuous improvement.FindingsLeaders highlighted the lean daily management system (DMS) as a robust platform to introduce and scale systemwide equity initiatives. The DMS consists of standardized practices including tiered huddles, leader rounding, and problem-solving that enable employees to accomplish daily tasks in alignment with organizational priorities. Humble inquiry was also cited as an effective way to address patient safety issues while fostering cultural humility and learning. Leaders strongly recommend integrating equity into other strategic goals (quality, affordability, patient/employee experience) and stratifying data to inform key performance indicators. Recommendations to strengthen accountability include setting equity goals and building them into performance evaluations, clearly communicating cultural norms and expectations, and creating equity-focused data reporting systems as the next step or evolution in this work.ConclusionsHealth care leaders can use lean management to advance equity by reducing variation in care processes and improving measurement of outcomes across diverse populations.

Reports of medical mistakes have splashed across newspapers and magazines in the United States. At the same time, instances of overuse, underuse, and misuse of management tactics and strategies receive far less attention. Tactics to increase health systems managers’ participation in management research include training in evidence-based management, investment in management research projects, and implementing knowledge management systems. To help in understanding and applying an evidenced-based approach to decision-making, the article excerpt provides practical tools and strategies to develop a questioning organizational culture.

Background and Objectives: To understand the relationship between Lean implementation in information technology (IT) departments and hospital performance, particularly with respect to operational and financial outcomes. Methods: Primary data were sourced from 1222 hospitals that responded to the National Survey of Lean (NSL)/Transformational Performance Improvement, which was fielded to 4500 general medical-surgical hospitals across the United States. Secondary sources included hospital performance data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). We performed 2 sets of multivariable regressions using data gathered from US hospitals, linked to AHRQ and CMS performance outcomes. We examined 10 different outcomes measuring financial performance, quality of care, and patient experience, and their associations with Lean adoption within hospital IT departments. We then focused only on those hospitals that adopted Lean in IT to identify specific practices associated with performance. Results: Controlling for other factors, adoption of Lean IT management was associated with lower length of stay ( b = –0.098, P = .018) and inpatient expense per discharge ( b = –0.112, P = .090). Specifically, use of visual management tools (eg, A3 storyboards, status sheets) was associated with lower adjusted inpatient expense per discharge ( b = –0.176, P = .034) and higher earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization margin ( b = 0.124, P = .042). Such tools were also associated with hospital participation in bundled payment programs (odds ratio = 2.326; P = .046; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-5.527) and percentage of net revenue paid on a shared risk basis ( b = 0.188, P = .031). Conclusions: Lean IT management was associated with positive financial performance, particularly with hospital participation in value-based payment. More detailed study is needed to understand other influential factors and types of work processes, activities, or mechanisms by which high-functioning IT can contribute to financial outcomes.

Goal: This study investigated the association between Lean and performance outcomes in U.S. public hospitals. Public hospitals face substantial pressure to deliver high-quality care with limited resources. Lean-based management systems can provide these hospitals with alternative approaches to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Prior research shows that Lean can have positive impacts in hospitals ranging in ownership type, but more study is needed, specifically in publicly owned hospitals. Methods: We performed multivariable regressions using data from the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement. The data were linked to publicly available hospital performance data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We examined 11 outcomes measuring financial performance, quality of care, and patient experience and their associations with Lean adoption. We also explored potential drivers of positive outcomes by examining Lean implementation in each hospital, measured as the number of units using Lean tools and practices; leader commitment to Lean principles; Lean training and education among physicians, nurses, and managers; and use of a daily management system among C-suite leaders and managers. Principal Findings: Lean adoption and implementation were associated with improved performance in U.S. public hospitals. Compared with hospitals that did not adopt Lean, those that did had significantly lower adjusted inpatient expenses per discharge and higher-than-average national scores on the appropriate use of medical imaging and timeliness of care. The study results also showed marginally significant improvements in patient experience and hospital earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization margins. Focusing on these select outcomes, we found that drivers of such improvements involved the extent of Lean implementation, as reflected by leadership commitment, daily management, and training/education while controlling for the number of years using Lean. Practical Applications: Lean is a method of continuous improvement centered around a culture of providing high-value care for patients. Our findings provide insight into the potential benefits of Lean in U.S. public hospitals. Notably, they suggest that leader buy-in is key to success. When executives and managers support Lean initiatives and provide proper training for the workforce, improved financial and operational performance can result. This commitment, starting with upper management, may also play a broader role in the effort to reform healthcare while having a positive impact on patient care in U.S. public hospitals.

The complexity, pace, and volatility of present-day work demands more dynamic organizational management systems. More recent management systems, e.g., agile or design thinking, have not proven to be the “silver bullet” to improved dynamic capabilities in part due to the paradoxical nature of multi-faceted organizational outcomes (e.g., people v. profit, quality v. innovation). Thus, scholars seek to examine the underlying principles and theories of management approaches, regardless of origin or age. Our proposed presentation symposium combines historical and futuristic perspective to examine 21st century lean practices through the lenses of temporality, centrality of work teams, and problem solving. The use of lean management approaches shifted significantly since 2000, from primary use in manufacturing settings to achieve efficiency, to extensive use knowledge-based settings, including hospitals and R&D, to achieve improved efficiency, quality, and innovation. This symposium includes three presentations and a discussion from internationally renowned scholars that collectively highlight temporality, centrality of work teams, and problem solving as critical lenses through which to study and improve management systems. Building upon a pluralistic approach, this symposium will take a significant step in advancing knowledge and provoking new directions for future research on team-oriented management systems. Managing Through a Pandemic: A Daily Management System for COVID-19 Response and Recovery Author: Dorothy Hung; U. of California, Berkeley Author: Thomas Rundall; U. of California, Berkeley Author: Justin Lee; U. of California, Berkeley Author: Negeen Khandel; U. of California, Berkeley Author: Stephen M. Shortell; U. of California, Berkeley Factors for Kaizen Event Success in Hospitals Author: Kimberly Harry; Virginia Tech Author: Wiljeana Jackson Glover; Babson College The paradox of Lean Management and Innovation climates: Problem-Solving as a potential moderator Author: Tal Katz-Navon; Arison School of Business, Reichman U. (IDC), Israel Author: Eitan Naveh; Technion Israel Institute of Technology Author: Noa Ebenstein-Ziv; Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Despite the rapid spread of Lean management in health care, few organizations have achieved measurable overall performance improvements with Lean. What differentiates these organizations from those that struggle with realizing the potential benefits of Lean management is unclear. In this qualitative study we explore measuring the impact of Lean and the recommended practices for achieving measurable performance improvements with Lean in health care organizations.METHODS:Informed by preliminary quantitative results from analyses of high- and low-performing Lean hospitals, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with Lean health care experts on the Lean principles and practices associated with better performance. We conducted qualitative content analyses of the interview transcripts based on grounded theory and linking to core principles and practices of the Lean management system.RESULTS:The qualitative data revealed 3 categories of metrics for measuring the impact of Lean: currently used institutional measures, measures tailored to Lean initiatives, and population-level measures. Leadership engagement/commitment and clear organizational focus/prioritization/alignment had the highest weighted averages of success factors. The lack of these 2 factors had the highest weighted averages of biggest barriers for achieving measurable performance improvements with Lean implementation.CONCLUSIONS:Leadership engagement and organizational focus can facilitate achieving the organization's performance improvement goals, whereas their absence can considerably hinder performance improvement efforts. Many different approaches have been used to quantify the impact of Lean, but currently used institutional performance measures are preferred by the majority of Lean experts.

Background Health-care organizations around the world are striving to achieve transformational performance improvement, often through adopting process improvement methodologies such as lean management. Indeed, lean management has been implemented in hospitals in many countries. But despite a shared methodology and the potential benefit of benchmarking lean implementation and its effects on hospital performance, cross-national lean benchmarking is rare. Health-care organizations in different countries operate in very different contexts, including different health-care system models, and these differences may be perceived as limiting the ability of improvers to benchmark lean implementation and related organizational performance. However, no empirical research is available on the international relevance and applicability of lean implementation and hospital performance measures. To begin understanding the opportunities and limitations related to cross-national benchmarking of lean in hospitals, we conducted a cross-national case study of the relevance and applicability of measures of lean implementation in hospitals and hospital performance. Methods We report an exploratory case study of the relevance of lean implementation measures and the applicability of hospital performance measures using quantitative comparisons of data from Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa (HUS) Helsinki University Hospital in Finland and a sample of 75 large academic hospitals in the USA. Results The relevance of lean-related measures was high across the two countries: almost 90% of the items developed for a US survey were relevant and available from HUS. A majority of the US-based measures for financial performance (66.7%), service provision/utilization (100.0%) and service provision/care processes (60.0%) were available from HUS. Differences in patient satisfaction measures prevented comparisons between HUS and the USA. Of 18 clinical outcome measures, only four (22%) were not comparable. Clinical outcome measures were less affected by the differences in health-care system models than measures related to service provision and financial performance. Conclusions Lean implementation measures are highly relevant in health-care organizations operating in the USA and Finland, as is the applicability of a variety of performance improvement measures. Cross-national benchmarking in lean healthcare is feasible, but a careful assessment of contextual factors, including the health-care system model, and their impact on the applicability and relevance of chosen benchmarking measures is necessary. The differences between the US and Finnish health-care system models is most clearly reflected in financial performance measures and care process measures.

Background and Objectives: The United States has an underperforming health care system on both cost and quality criteria in comparison with other developed countries. One approach to improving system performance on both cost and quality is to use the Lean Management System based on the Shingo principles originally developed by Toyota in Japan. Our objective was to examine the association between hospital use of the Lean Management System and evidence-based or recommended quality improvement care management processes. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of data from 223 hospitals that responded to both the 2017 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems and the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals was conducted. Results: Controlling for hospital organizational and market characteristics, the number of years using Lean was positively associated with use of electronic health record-based decision support, use of quality-focused information management, use of evidence-based guidelines, and support for care transitions at the P < .05 level. The degree of education and training in Lean methods and processes was also positively associated (P < .05) with greater support for care transitions. The number of years using Lean was marginally associated with screening for clinical conditions at the P < .10 level. There was an unexpected negative association between education and training scores and screening for clinical conditions. Conclusions: Greater experience in using the Lean Management System is positively associated with several evidence-based and/or recommended quality improvement care management processes.

In this chapter, we identify three distinct transformational performance improvement (TPI) approaches commonly used to redesign work processes in health care organizations. We describe the unique components or tools that each approach uses to improve the delivery of health services. We also summarize what is empirically known about the effectiveness of each TPI approach according to systematic reviews and recent studies published in the peer-reviewed literature. Based on examination of this research, we discuss what knowledge is still needed to strengthen the evidence for whole system transformation. This involves the use of conceptual frameworks to assess and guide implementation efforts, and facilitators and barriers to change as revealed in a recent evaluation of one major initiative, the Lean Enterprise Transformation (LET) at the Veterans Health Administration. The analysis suggests ways in which TPI facilitators can be developed and barriers reduced to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of quality initiatives. Finally, we discuss appropriate study designs to evaluate TPI interventions that may strengthen the evidence for their effectiveness in real world practice settings.

Goal: This study explored the use of a Lean daily management system (DMS) for COVID-19 response and recovery in U.S. hospitals and health systems. Originally developed in manufacturing, Lean is an evidence-based approach to quality and process improvement in healthcare. Although Lean has been studied in individual hospital units and outpatient practices, it has not been examined as a whole system response to crisis events. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 46 executive leaders, clinical leaders, and frontline staff in four hospitals and health systems across the United States. We developed a semistructured interview guide to understand DMS implementation in these care delivery organizations. As interviews took place 6–8 months following the onset of the pandemic, a subset of our interview questions centered on DMS use to meet the demands of COVID-19. Based on a deductive approach to qualitative analysis, we identified clusters of themes that described how DMS facilitated rapid system response to the public health emergency. Principal Findings: There were many important ways in which U.S. hospitals and health systems leveraged their DMS to address COVID-19 challenges. These included the use of tiered huddles to facilitate rapid communication, the creation of standard work for redeployed staff, and structured problem-solving to prioritize new areas for improvement. We also discovered ways that the pandemic itself affected DMS implementation in all organizations. COVID-19 universally created greater DMS visibility by opening lines of communication among leadership, strengthening measurement and accountability, and empowering staff to develop solutions at the front lines. Many lessons learned using DMS for crisis management will carry forward into COVID-19 recovery efforts. Lessons include expanding telehealth, reactivating incident command systems as needed, and efficiently coordinating resources amid potential future shortages. Practical Applications: Overall, the Lean DMS functioned as a robust property that enabled quick organizational response to unpredictable events. Our findings on the use of DMS are consistent with organizational resilience that emphasizes collective sense-making and awareness of incident status, team decision-making, and frequent interaction and coordination. These features of resilience are supported by DMS practices such as tiered huddles for rapid information dissemination and alignment across organizational hierarchies. When used in conjunction with plan-do-study-act methodology, huddles provide teams with enhanced feedback that strengthens their ability to make changes as needed. Moreover, gaps between work-as-imagined (how work should be done) and work-as-done (how work is actually done) may be exacerbated in the initial chaos of emergency events but can be minimized through the development of standard work protocols. As a facilitator of resilience, the Lean DMS may be used in a variety of challenging situations to ensure high standards of care.

Background and Objectives: Lean management in health care organizations attempts to empower staff to generate continuous improvement through incremental but regular improvements in work processes. However, because of the increasing pressure on health care organizations to substantially improve quality of care and patient outcomes while containing costs in the relatively short term, many health care leaders are looking for ways to achieve large breakthrough improvements in their organization's performance. The objective of this research is to understand whether and how Lean management can be used to achieve breakthrough improvements in performance. Methods: This study used grounded theory and content analysis of in-depth, semistructured interviews with 10 nationally recognized experts in the use of Lean management in health care organizations. The 10 participants constitute a purposive sample of experts with in-depth understanding of the strengths and limitations of Lean management in health care organizations. Results: Two out of 10 participants defined breakthrough improvement as a major change in a performance metric; 2 participants defined it as a fundamental redesign in a process or service; the remaining 6 participants defined breakthrough improvement as having both these characteristics. The extent to which participants believed Lean was an effective means for achieving breakthrough improvement in performance was related to how they defined breakthrough improvement. The 2 participants who defined breakthrough improvement as a significant change in a performance metric believed Lean methods alone were sufficient. The 2 participants who defined breakthrough improvement to be a fundamental redesign tended not to view Lean alone as an effective approach. Rather, they, and the 6 participants who defined breakthrough improvement as having both change-in-metric and process redesign characteristics, viewed human-centered design thinking as the primary or important complementary approach to achieving breakthrough improvement. Participants identified resources, culture change, and leadership commitment beyond what would be required to achieve incremental improvement as the main facilitators and barriers to achieving breakthrough improvements. Conclusion: This research reveals some differences in experts' definitions of breakthrough improvement, and illuminates the value of human-centered design thinking, alone or as a complement to Lean management, in achieving breakthrough improvement in health care organizations. Most of our expert participants agreed that supplementing Lean management methods with the contributions of innovation design and investing significant resources, strengthening the organizational culture to support the necessary changes, and providing stronger leadership commitment to the effort are important facilitators for achieving breakthroughs in organizational performance.

BACKGROUND:Lean management is growing in popularity in the healthcare sector worldwide, yet healthcare organizations are struggling with assessing the maturity of their Lean implementation and monitoring its change over time. Most existing methods for such assessments are time consuming, require site visits by external consultants, and lack frontline involvement. The original Lean Healthcare Implementation Self-Assessment Instrument (LHISI) was developed by the Center for Lean Engagement and Research (CLEAR), University of California, Berkeley as a Lean principles-based survey instrument that avoids the above problems. We validated the original LHISI in the context of Finnish healthcare.METHODS:The original HISI survey was sent over a secure organizational email system to the over 26,000 employees of the Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa in March 2020. The data were randomly split with one part used to carry out an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other for testing the resulting model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).RESULTS:A total of 6073 employees responded to the LHISI survey, for an overall response rate of 23%. The results indicated that the 43 items used in the original LHISI can be reduced to 25 items, and these items measure a five-dimensional model of the progress of Lean implementation: leadership, commitment, standard work, communication, and daily management system. In comparison with a single-factor model, the fit measures for the 5-factor model were better: smaller X2, larger comparative fit index (CFI), smaller root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and smaller standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).CONCLUSIONS:The 25 item LHISI is valid and feasible to use in the context of Finnish healthcare. The LHISI allows the organization to self-monitor the progress of its Lean implementation and provides the leadership with actionable knowledge to guide the path towards Lean maturity across the organization. Our findings encourage further studies on the adoption and validation of the LHISI in healthcare organizations worldwide.

Background Reliable benchmarking in Lean healthcare requires widely relevant and applicable domains for outcome metrics and careful attention to contextual levels. These levels have been poorly defined and no framework to facilitate performance benchmarking exists. Methods We systematically searched the Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify original articles reporting benchmarking on different contextual levels in Lean healthcare and critically appraised the articles. Scarcity and heterogeneity of articles prevented quantitative meta-analyses. We developed a new, widely applicable conceptual framework for benchmarking drawing on the principles of ten commonly used healthcare quality frameworks and four value statements, and suggest an agenda for future research on benchmarking in Lean healthcare. Results We identified 22 articles on benchmarking in Lean healthcare on 4 contextual levels: intra-organizational (6 articles), regional (4), national (10), and international (2). We further categorized the articles by the domains in the proposed conceptual framework: patients (6), employed and affiliated staff (2), costs (2), and service provision (16). After critical appraisal, only one fifth of the articles were categorized as high quality. Conclusions When making evidence-informed decisions based on current scarce literature on benchmarking in healthcare, leaders and managers should carefully consider the influence of context. The proposed conceptual framework may facilitate performance benchmarking and spreading best practices in Lean healthcare. Future research on benchmarking in Lean healthcare should include international benchmarking, defining essential factors influencing Lean initiatives on different levels of context; patient-centered benchmarking; and system-level benchmarking with a balanced set of outcomes and quality measures.

Background: The Lean management system is being adopted and implemented by an increasing number of US hospitals. Yet few studies have considered the impact of Lean on hospitalwide performance. Methods: A multivariate analysis was performed of the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals and 2018 publicly available data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services on 10 quality/appropriateness of care, cost, and patient experience measures. Results: Hospital adoption of Lean was associated with higher Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient experience scores (b = 3.35, p < 0.0001) on a scale of 100?300 but none of the other 9 performance measures. The degree of Lean implementation measured by the number of units throughout the hospital using Lean was associated with lower adjusted inpatient expense per admission (b = -38.67; p < 0.001), lower 30-day unplanned readmission rate (b = -0.01, p < 0.007), a score above the national average on appropriate use of imaging?a measure of low-value care (odds ratio = 1.04, p < 0.042), and higher HCAHPS patient experience scores (b = 0.12, p < 0.012). The degree of Lean implementation was not associated with any of the other 6 performance measures. Conclusion: Lean is an organizationwide sociotechnical performance improvement system. As such, the actual degree of implementation throughout the organization as opposed to mere adoption is, based on the present findings, more likely to be associated with positive hospital performance on at least some measures.

Background Despite being adopted by a large number of hospitals, the relationship between Lean management and hospital performance is mixed and not well understood. Purpose We examined the relationships between Lean and hospital financial performance, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction in a large national sample of hospitals, controlling for relevant organizational and market factors. Methodology/Approach A mixed effects linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relationships between adoption of Lean and 10 measures of hospital performance using data from 1,152 hospitals that responded to the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals. Hospital performance, organizational, and market data over the period 2011-2015 come from the 2015 American Hospital Association Annual Hospital Survey and the respective annual Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Cost Report, CMS Hospital Compare, CMS MEDPAR, and the CMS Hospital Service Area File. Results Lean adoption was significantly associated at alpha < .05, with lower Medicare spending per beneficiary (b = -.005, p = .027). None of the other nine associations were statistically significant, although eight of them were in the predicted direction. Conclusion Lean adoption is not associated with most measures of hospital performance. It is likely Lean implementation varies greatly across hospitals. Future research should examine the relationships among the various dimensions of Lean implementation and performance. Practice Implications If Lean management is to contribute to hospital performance improvement, leaders must be highly cognizant of what "adoption of Lean" actually means in their hospital. Although limited, single-unit Lean initiatives in an emergency room or other patient care unit may improve performance on some unit-specific measures, improvement on hospital-wide measures of performance requires a broad, sustained commitment to the implementation of Lean practices and tools.

The integration of health care services is intended to improve the continuity, quality and efficiency of care provided to patients. This is a challenging goal and presumes that there is much about the current health care system that needs improvement. Health maintenance organisations (HMOs) provide a continuum of services including disease prevention, primary, secondary and tertiary acute care services, in exchange for a fixed membership fee per member per month. Community Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) provides a package of services, including housing, health care, and social services, to older adults. The chapter examines the efforts in the United States and the United Kingdom to integrate health services. It is apparent that fully integrated systems are more rare than appears at first glance. Thus the much more challenging task of developing fully integrated systems may be reserved for those sub-populations with high levels of medical need or special circumstances.

EDITORIAL article Front. Public Health, 31 July 2019Sec. Public Health Education and Promotion Volume 7 - 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00213

BACKGROUND:Given pressures to control costs and improve quality of care, one of the most prevalent transformational performance improvement approaches in health care is Lean management. However, the roles of support functions such as human resource (HR), finance, and information technology (IT) in Lean management and the relationships of these support functions with performance are unknown.PURPOSE:The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between the HR, finance, and IT functions, overall Lean implementation, and self-reported performance improvement in hospitals that have implemented Lean.METHODOLOGY/APPROACH:Data from a national survey of Lean in U.S. hospitals (N = 1,222; 847 reported using Lean) were analyzed using multivariable regression and bootstrapped mediation analysis. The extent to which HR, finance, and IT functions support Lean management was measured using indices including six, three, and six items respectively. Lean implementation was measured by the number of units doing Lean (up to 29) and by a four-level self-reported maturity scale. Performance improvement was measured using an index of self-reported achievements (ranging from 0 to 16).RESULTS:There were significant positive associations between Lean HR, finance, and IT functions and self-reported performance impact (controlling for organizational and market variables). Tests of mediation indicated that the associations of HR, finance, and IT functions with self-reported performance were significantly mediated by the number of Lean units (mediated proportion ranging from 40% to 73%), and HR function was also mediated by self-reported maturity (61% mediated). There were no moderating effects.CONCLUSION:HR, finance, and IT functions are positively associated with self-reported Lean impact on performance and primarily explained by the overall degree of Lean implementation.PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Efforts to align HR, finance, and IT functions with overall Lean implementation can help to ensure that frontline caregivers and managers have the data and skills required to meet transformational improvement goals.

Many public hospitals have adopted Lean management methodology, but little is known about the extent of Lean adoption or the relationship between Lean adoption and hospital performance. Using data from the 2017 National Survey of Lean/Transformational Performance Improvement in Hospitals, linked with data from the American Hospital Association 2015 Annual Hospital Survey and 2015 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data on hospital performance, we compare public hospitals with nonprofit and for-profit hospitals on the rate of Lean adoption and the extent of Lean implementation. We also assess the associations between Lean adoption by the end of 2014 and measures of public hospital financial performance, patient outcomes, and patient satisfaction measured in 2015.Among the 288 public hospitals that responded to the survey, 54.2% reported that they had adopted Lean. The average length of time of Lean implementation was 4.58 years. The mean number of units in which Lean was implemented was 11.9 out of 29 possible hospital units, with the emergency department (ED) being the unit in which Lean was most frequently implemented. The most common Lean practices used were daily huddles, plan-do-study-act cycles, visual management, and use of standard work. Lean adoption by 2014 was significantly associated in the direction predicted with earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization margin (b = .042, p < .020) and percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen (b = -0.610, p < .068). No significant associations were found between Lean adoption and patient outcomes or patient satisfaction.