Table 2.
Comparison between the 2 fundamental studies of the project
Application of Lean Six Sigma Tools to Orthopaedic Surgery | ||
---|---|---|
First Study | Second Study | |
Type of intervention | Hip replacement surgery | Knee replacement surgery |
# patients before improvements | 79 | 131 |
# patients after improvements | 48 | 87 |
Analysis period before improvements | Jun 2011 to Dec 2012 | Jun 2011 to May 2013 |
Analysis period after improvements | Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 | Jan 2014 to Dec 2015 |
Define phase | •Project chart | •Project chart |
•SIPOC diagram | •Gantt chart | |
•Input process output (IPO) diagram | ||
Measure phase | •Run chart | •Shapiro‐Wilk and statistical tests |
•Run tests | •Run chart | |
•Run tests | ||
Analysis phase | •Value Stream Map | •Value Stream Map |
•Brainstorming | •Brainstorming | |
•Ishikawa fishbone | •Interview with health care professional | |
Improve phase | •Activation pre‐hospital service | •Simplification of complex bureaucratic procedures |
•Simplification of complex bureaucratic procedures | •Standardization of the patient discharge process | |
•Standardization of the patient discharge process | •Promotion of the health care information system through meetings | |
•Information activities for the clinical staff | ||
Control phase | •Student's t test for comparative analysis | •Mann‐Whitney U test for comparative analysis |
•Periodical review meetings | •Periodical review meetings | |
•Internal auditing | •Internal auditing | |
•Periodical updates of the run chart | •Periodical updates of the run chart | |
Length of stay reduction (%) | 44 | 42 |