Print Friendly

In Lean Healthcare familiarity with Muda (8 wastes) is well known and documented.  Less familiar are two other classifications of waste:  Muri (overburden) and Mura (unevenness).

If we want to see a continued transformation of healthcare in the United States then Muri must be identifiable and understood in Lean Healthcare.

Muri (overburden) is commonly exhibited when physicians and nurses are asked to complete too many activities in a given period of time.  This comes in two forms—either alerts requiring work to be complete or administrative overburden.  It leads to stress, frustration, and severe negativity impacting the self-assurance of those doing the work.

Hospitals and clinics are seeing sensory overload from call bells, pages, multiple communication devices, and excessive interruptions resulting in alert fatigue.  In addition, with the advent of CPOE, electronic medication administration, and electronic charting, administrative burden associated with patient care has increased.  Even those in Lean Healthcare are at times guilty of adding administrative overburden.  It is done with the best intentions in mind, but additional activities are sometimes added without evaluating the entire workload of the physician or nurse.

The evidence is clear that CPOE, electronic charting, call bells, and the like increase patient safety and must be embraced.  However it must not be at the expense of creating overburden for the physician or the nurse.


Today’s blog was written by Joe Crist, Senior Manager with HPP.

For the past 17 years, Joe’s work has focused on operational improvements through lean transformations across North America and Europe.  Prior to joining HPP, he worked across a variety of industries in multiple leadership roles from the front line to the executive leadership team.  Joe received a B.S. in Engineering and Philosophy at University of New York.  Additionally, Joe earned a Masters in Human Resources and Training and Development focused on Business Improvements and Balance Sheets from Webster University.

Print Friendly

Print Friendly

Curbing Hospital Acquired Infections
A  response to USA Today editorials

A few weeks ago, USA Today published opposing editorial letters on hospital acquired infections:  Curbing Killer Bacteria Isn’t Rocket Science and the opposing view There is No Easy Answer.

I couldn’t help but think of my blog from this past January, What is your Healthcare Organization’s Target for Hurting Patients this Year?

One presents a convincing case from a patient’s perspective: that no patient should go to any hospital with an expectation of getting sicker from the environment.  His argument: just stop it, this isn’t rocket science.  The other editorialist expresses that there are no simple solutions and zero “preventable” infections is the ultimate goal.

Zero hospital acquired infections is and should always be the goal.  This is the starting and ending point in the discussion from a Lean Healthcare perspective.  If either editorialist were familiar with process improvement from a Lean Healthcare point of view, their arguments would be different.  It is greater than the investment in technology and stating that healthcare just needs to stop hurting patients.

Both writers flirt with reality but never quite get there: that while it is not rocket science, tremendous, standardized, grass-roots effort and purpose must be applied across the organization to prevent hospital acquired infections, and that it takes strong leadership and an all-hands-on-deck mentality to sustain success.

Lean Healthcare can deliver with little to no investment into technology:  There are several healthcare organizations that have gone months without a hospital infection.  One, who is re-writing the standard, is Cedars-Sinai in Los Angles.  Another is McLeod Health in Florence, South Carolina.  Here’s another success story from a hospital in Oklahoma.

Before your healthcare organization believes that the solution to hospital acquired infections is as simple as just “stop it” or “there are no simple solutions” look to lean healthcare and process improvement.

What are your thoughts on these two articles?  Do you agree with either? Or, do you have a different opinion?


This week’s blog was written by Joe Crist, Senior Manager with HPP.
For the past 17 years, Joe’s work has focused on operational improvements through lean transformations across North America and Europe.  Prior to joining HPP, he worked across a variety of industries in multiple leadership roles from the front line to the executive leadership team.  Joe completed his undergraduate degree at University of New York where he received a B.S. in Engineering and Philosophy.  Additionally, Joe earned his Masters in Human Resources and Training and Development focused on Business Improvements and Balance Sheets from Webster University.

Print Friendly

Print Friendly

Many healthcare organizations are embracing Lean Healthcare as a methodology for improved flow and efficiency.  However, many of these organizations are overlooking Reliability and Safety when it comes to patient care.  The elimination of defects, in regards to patient safety, in Lean Healthcare is called Reliability and Safety.

2012’s goals and objectives are in full swing.  Many have set targets for Ventilator Associated Pneumonia, Central Line Infections, Wrong Site Surgery, and other core measures and many of these targets will sound like, “Reduce by 25%” or “Lower percentage than 2011.”  These goals cause me to reflect back to when I was a young executive leader of an operation. 

Through our annual goal setting process targeting the corporate breakthrough objectives, we set a target of a 50% reduction in lost time accidents.  Ed Novonty, one of my early mentors, rejected this target through our ‘catch ball’ process.  I still recall his words, “Joe, I cannot accept that you are targeting to hurt 5 people next year.”  By saying this, Ed challenged me to look at the goal as though I were responsible for hurting these people, as opposed to generically reducing injuries.  My leadership team’s incentive was tied to meeting these goals.  Ed inquired about our process for accident investigation and about our leading indicators for such an objective.  After much discussion our target became zero.

This dialogue played out again when Cindy McDonald, Vice President for FirstHealth of the Carolinas, pitched to the board that we were embracing a strategy of ‘Achieving Zero.’  She explained that FirstHealth had made great strides.  Achieving linear improvement was not going to deliver patient expectations.  It required a new way of thinking and approach.  One event that could be prevented was one too many.  Who would volunteer their family member to be one of the patients that acquired Ventilator Associated Pneumonia or develop a Surgical Site Infection while still meeting target?  I observed physicians stepping up to become team leaders.  Each event was investigated in detail, leading indicators were developed, response teams were established, and Six Sigma was applied to the potential patient population.

According to Weick and Sutcliffe in their breakthrough book “Managing the Unexpected:  Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity,” FirstHealth was taking the next step in their three year journey of Just Culture to a deeper Mindfulness.   Reliability and Safety is an integral part of Lean Healthcare.

So, the question remains: “What is your healthcare organization’s target for hurting patients this year?”


This week’s blog was written by Joe Crist, Senior Manager with HPP.
 
For the past 17 years, Joe’s work has focused on operational improvements through lean transformations across North America and Europe.  Prior to joining HPP, he worked across a variety of industries in multiple leadership roles from the front line to the executive leadership team.  Joe completed his undergraduate degree at University of New York where he received a B.S. in Engineering and Philosophy.  Additionally, Joe earned his Masters in Human Resources and Training and Development focused on Business Improvements and Balance Sheets from Webster University.

Print Friendly

A Leap of Faith

2 Comments

Print Friendly

In a first-time 2008 study completed by the American Society for Quality (ASQ), 77 U.S. hospitals responded to questions on their level of lean or six sigma deployment[1].  While 2011 now leaves the study three years dated, looking back these respondents provided validated insight into what would become common deployment struggles for other hospitals across the country.
 
Of those who responded, 53 percent reported a level of lean deployment, and 42 percent reported a use of Six Sigma.  Those who reported ‘full deployment’ ranged from four percent for Lean and eight percent for Six Sigma.  While those numbers aren’t terribly impressive, what were truly important were the measures of roadblocks and struggles. The survey responses identified need for resources, lack of information, and leadership buy-in as the major factors for the lack of ‘full deployment,’ or if there was no deployment at all.
 
In the 2005 Institute of Healthcare Improvement’s (IHI) article edited by Diana Miller, “Going Lean in Healthcare,” with contributors including James Womack, Gary Kaplan of Virginia Mason, John Toussaint of ThedaCare, and others, identified leadership as a key driver in a successful “full deployment” of Lean Healthcare.  Looking at the ASQ survey’s three major reasons for the lack of deployment, all are in the leadership arena.
 
Paraphrasing on our friend Kierkegaard, a ‘leap of faith’ is accepting the unproven and acting upon it.  I remember back in 2005 sitting across John Toussaint’s desk, then President and CEO of ThedaCare, when he expressed his commitment to Lean Healthcare.  John shared that he was betting ThedaCare’s future and his reputation on this methodology.
 
The deployment became the priority.  There were no more competing initiatives, resources became available, and there was no question regarding his ‘buy-in.’ While there certainly was success in the early years, the following years have been unparalleled.  Some would say the results delivered are the model which healthcare should follow.
 
Even in 2008 there was no hard evidence that warranted this ‘leap of faith’ towards Lean Healthcare. Is a ‘leap of faith’ required by leadership to obtain improvement?  Absolutely not!  This was evident in the ASQ’s survey and IHI’s article identified above. Deployment can occur with a varying range of success and scope.  However, if leadership is looking to expand success from the ED, on the unit, in the OR, and across the entire healthcare institution, then, a ‘leap of faith’ is required.
 
 

This week’s blog was written by Joe crist, Senior Associate with HPP. For the past 17 years, Joe’s work has focused on operational improvements through lean transformations across North America and Europe.  Prior to joining HPP, he worked across a variety of industries in multiple leadership roles from the front line to the executive leadership team. Joe completed his undergraduate degree at University of New York where he received a B.S. in Engineering and Philosophy.  Additionally, Joe earned his Masters in Human Resources and Training and Development focused on Business Improvements and Balance Sheets from Webster University.
 

Print Friendly