Objective: The increase in the financial imposition of laboratories together with developing technology and evidence-based medicine applications increased the importance of quality and efficiency studies in laboratories. The aim of the study is to examine the processes of pathology laboratory, determine the causes of waste and select lean management techniques to eliminate the causes of waste.
Material and Method: A five-phase plan was used for the application of lean management in the pathology laboratory. After a comprehensive literature review, these phases were determined as follows; the support of the senior management, observation, training of employees, drawing of value stream maps and creation of value stream plan. Gastric biopsy process was selected as product/service family when value stream maps were generated. In addition, fishbone diagram and Pareto analysis were used to determine the causes of waste.
Results: In the current state, 73.6% of the time spent on a gastric biopsy sample in the pathology laboratory was wasted. The most common causes of waste were identified as problems with cleaning, equipment supply problems, lack of clinical information, equipment malfunction and errors. A value stream plan was developed with lean techniques to eliminate the causes of these wastes. In the pathology laboratory, a 4.6% improvement will be achieved with the achievement of the future stated target.
Conclusion: A model for lean management techniques in a developing country that will enable the pathology laboratories to work more efficiently and with improved quality has been developed in this study
Although lean management studies in the public health sector are more disadvantaged than the private sector in terms of budget, hierarchical structure and sustainability, successful results can be obtained [6-8]. Lean management in the public sector is used to improve clinical processes, patient care, treatment practices, operation and laboratory processes, and imaging services [9-17]. However, since laboratories are the units that are most similar to a processing department within health care institutions, they are widely accepted in lean management practices and are generally chosen as the starting point in lean management practice [3,5]. In addition, advances in diagnosis and treatment, evidence-based medicine practices and technological changes, as well as the increased financial restrictions imposed on laboratories, have increased the interest in quality and productivity in laboratories [18,19]. On the other hand, the number of lean management studies conducted in pathology laboratories is very limited and generally include examples from developed countries [20-24].
This study was carried out in the pathology laboratory of a public hospital in Ankara, Turkey. The aim of the study is to examine the processes of pathology laboratory, determine the causes of waste and select lean management techniques to eliminate the causes of waste. With this leading work, a model is proposed in lean management techniques in a developing country that will enable the pathology laboratories to work more efficiently and with improved quality.
Data Collection
This study was carried out between September 2017 and
May 2018. Data on this current state of the pathology
laboratory were obtained from the hospital statistical
unit and pathology laboratory. In addition, participatory
observation and unstructured interview method were
used to collect the data of lean methodology and semistructured
observation forms were used to record the
findings obtained during the observation.
Lean Methodology
Lean management is based on five basic principles: value,
value stream, flow, pull and perfection [1]. Application
phases and techniques used differ according to the work
spaces. As a result of literature review in this study
[1,2,3,5,11,26,27] an application plan consisting of five
phases was created. These phases were determined as
taking the support of the senior management, observation,
training of the employees, drawing up the value stream
mapping and creating the value stream plan.
Phase 1: Support of the Senior Management
Senior management support for lean management practices
is the first and the most important element [1,3,28]. The
most important factor in the selection of the hospital is
that the hospital staff members had been trained in lean
management in health institutions. As a result of face-toface
meetings with senior management, the management
participation for the study conducted was guaranteed. They
were eager for lean practices and provided legal permission
for the study.
Phase 2: Observation
In the second stage of the study, one month (November
2017) with intermittent observation method 14
observations were performed in the pathology laboratory.
During observations, semi-structured observation forms
were utilized to record the data to be used in other stages of
the study. In order to strengthen the observation method, it
is recommended to use together with the interview method
[29,30]. For this reason, information about pathology
laboratory processes was obtained from the employees
with unstructured interview method.
Phase 3: Training of Employees
As employee participation is very important in lean
management applications [31,32], employees are required
to know the lean management terms and the lean
management tools. For this purpose, training programs
covering lean management concepts and definitions,
techniques used in lean management practices and
examples of lean management in health institutions were
organized. The training programs were carried out by
researchers in two sessions of 50 minutes to physicians and
other laboratory staff. At the same time, the employees and
researchers exchanged ideas for the next stages of the study
and their questions were answered.
Phase 4: Value Stream Mapping
It is aimed to visualize the process steps with value stream
mapping, to determine the causes of waste in the process
and to create plans for the elimination of these matters [33].
In this way, process spaces that work in accordance with
lean management principles can be revealed. The product/
service family selection, creating the current state map and
setting the future state map were followed in the creation
of the value stream mapping in the pathology laboratory in
this study [15].
Product/Service Family Selection
It will be quite complicated to show the entire process
and stream of information in a business area on a single
map [33]. For this reason, firstly a product/service family
selection should be made in value stream mapping. In this
study, gastric biopsy samples were selected as product/
service family considering the number of samples and units
in which they were processed in the laboratory. In this way,
it was possible to examine all processes in the pathology
laboratory.
Current State Map
The next step after selecting the product/service family
is the creation of the current state map. The data used in
the preparation of the current state map were obtained
from the records of the pathology laboratory as well as
observations and interviews. For the calculation of the
periods with added value and waiting time (did not add
value), the samples were monitored during the process
and measurements were made with the timepiece. In this
study, gastric biopsy samples consisting of 44 models
were selected and recorded as product/service family for
recording the current state map.
In this current state, there are 11 pathologist, 7 assistant pathologist, 15 laboratory technicians, 7 medical secretaries, 2 servants and 1 hospital cleaning staff in the pathology laboratory. The laboratory serves every weekday between 08.00-17.00 hours. During this period when the study was carried out, a total of 25488 samples, 20274 biopsies and 5214 cytology were examined in the pathology laboratory. The results in the biopsy period in the pathology laboratory were 3.99 working days; the period of cytology results was 2.57 working days. When the number of inappropriate samples was examined in the pathology laboratory; it was observed that 90 samples were rejected between January, 2017 and May, 2018. When the reasons for rejection were examined, pre-diagnosis/clinical information deficiency (n=25), inappropriate transfer (n=17), lack of doctors cachet (n=15), irregular entry (n=10) and other reasons (n=23) were determined.
The basic processes in pathology laboratory value stream include pathology request, sample acceptance, macroscopy, tissue surveillance, blocking, sectioning, incubator, staining/coverslipping, immunohistochemistry/ histochemistry, microscopic examination, reporting, report control and archive steps. In the pathology laboratory, it was observed that there is a long waiting period between the stages of macroscopy/tissue surveillance, microscopic examination/reporting and report control/conclusion. In the pathology laboratory, the current state mapping for the gastric biopsy (Figure 1) was examined, time of stream in the pathology laboratory was 74 hours 09 minutes, waiting period was 54 hours 37 minutes, and a value added period was 19 hours 32 minutes. Currently, 73.6% of the time spent in the pathology laboratory for gastric biopsy samples did not add value.
In the pathology laboratory, the wastage reasons determined by the current state mapping are listed below:
It has been determined that appropriate transport containers were not used for transfer of pathology samples to the laboratory. For transfer of samples to the laboratory, carrying cases that hold materials at a certain temperature should be used. Samples which are not carried under appropriate conditions may affect the pathology result. In addition, rejection of samples that were not carried under appropriate conditions causes a waste of time and cost.
Lack of clinical information sent in request forms causes waste of time. The lack of clinical information was among the top reasons for sample rejection. The lack of clinical information affects pathologists diagnosis times and causes wasted time and error.
There was no warning system for infected material (HIV, Hepatitis) on samples sent to the pathology laboratory. This can be a waste of error and also pose a threat to occupational safety.
Samples taken to the sample acceptance and recording unit were both electronically recorded to the hospital information management system (HIMS) and a pathology registry was kept manually. Post-recording samples were very difficult to follow in laboratory. This situation causes waste of time and error. In addition, the tracking number of the materials coming to the laboratory was given manually by the secretary. This may cause possible waste of error.
During the report creation phase, a secretary at the macroscopy unit wrote a report to the assistant or senior physician. This causes waste of error and time.
Laboratory unit is the area where blocking, sectioning, incubator and staining/cover slipping operations are performed. In the pathology laboratory there was an employee responsible for cleaning and supply of materials. Lack of these personnel in this area causes problems in cleaning and supplying materials.
In the laboratory, the outcome report was recorded by the secretary after being registered to HIMS, and two outputs (for patient and archive) were submitted to the approval of the pathologist. If the report required correction, the process was repeated. This causes unnecessary material use and unnecessary act of the secretary. In addition, the time elapses and there is dissipation of time.
In the laboratory, there was no archiving area for the samples coming with consultation. This can cause possible waste of error, making it difficult to find materials and also wastes time.
Future State Map
The next step after the current state map was the creation
of a future state map. The transportation of the samples
to the laboratory with the future state map, sample
acceptance, macroscopy, reporting and archive sections
were determined as kaizen point. In addition, the sample
acceptance unit was selected for 5S application in the
laboratory area including work standardization and
blocking, sectioning, incubator, staining and cover slipping
(Figure 2). Although some processes in the pathology
laboratory did not create value, they must be maintained
in the current state. For example, samples wait for 13
hours 03 minutes for tissue surveillance after macroscopy
and this causes time wasting. However, an improvement
to eliminate this waste will result in the accumulation of
staining and microscopic examination units. Therefore, in
order to maintain the current state, this waiting is currently
required and cannot be eliminated.
In the preanalytical process with future state map, it is aimed to eliminate error and time with kaizen applications in macroscopy units and sample acceptance; waste and unnecessary movement wastes with the 5S application to be made in the laboratory area. With kaizen practices after the reporting at the report control phase the time, cost and movement wastage will be prevented. In addition, continuous stream can be achieved with the principle of pulling between the report and the report control, thus eliminating the waiting period of 11 hours. In this case, the stream time will be 63 hours 09 minutes, the waiting time will be 43 hours 37 minutes, and the value added time will be 19 hours 32 minutes. The rate of waiting time will be reduced from 73.6% to 69% and there will be an improvement of 4.6%.
Phase 5: Value Stream Plan
A value stream plan was prepared in order to achieve the
goals set in the future state map. In this study, the fishbone
diagram and Pareto analysis were used to develop lean
managements principle of respect for people and [3<,r34>]
and to increase employee participation in the value stream
plan. The causes of wastage as a result of the value stream
mapping, observations and meetings were visualized by
the fishbone diagram as a result of brain storming with
employees of pathology laboratory (Figure 3).
Causes of wastage as a result of fishbone diagram were determined as unnecessary procedures, lack of information system, equipment malfunctions, equipment supply problems, errors, lack of clinical information, cleaning problems and transportation problems. These causes of waste in the pathology laboratory were collected under the headings of method, equipment, people and other causes. After the creation of the fishbone diagram, Pareto analysis was carried out to select the most important reasons. A form determined by the fishbone diagram was created for the Pareto analysis, and the employees working at the pathology laboratory were asked how often these kinds of waste were encountered. In order to make the necessary calculations for Pareto analysis, the results were rated as rarely = 1, sometimes = 2, generally = 3, and frequent = 4. Thirty-five of the pathology laboratory employees volunteered to participate in the study. In the first stage, the data were classified, and the cumulative points and percentages were calculated. Cleaning problems were the most common waste with 88 points; the problems encountered in transportation were determined as the least commonly encountered waste with 51 points. A Pareto analysis chart was created to visualize the cumulative scores and percentages calculated in the second stage to apply the 20/80 rule [35] and to determine the causes of waste to be given priority (Figure 4).
As a result of Pareto analysis, problems which were below 80% were selected. These were problems that related to cleaning, problems in supplying material, lack of clinical information, machine failures and errors and thus determined as priority headings. Unnecessary procedures, lack of information systems and problems in transportation were excluded.
Wastage points determined by the fishbone diagram and value stream maps were prioritized by Pareto analysis. After this stage, a value stream plan was established in order to reach the targets in the future state map. The value stream consisted of the determined causes of waste, waste types, the lean techniques to be used and solution offers (Table I).
Also it was determined in this study that the value stream plan, error and movement wastes in the pathology laboratory can be eliminated. In the pathology laboratory of Dokuz Eylul University Hospital, a study was performed by using various lean instruments to increase productivity.
As a result of the study, the total number of errors were reduced from 110 to 64 and the number of mislabeling errors were reduced from 30 to 15 [24]. In the study conducted in a pathology laboratory of a hospital in Detroit, the error rate was reduced by 55% [20]. Another study conducted in Australia eliminated 187 kilometers unnecessary walking per year [22]. In the pathology laboratory of the University of Michigan Hospital, the lean applications performed during the Pap test process resulted in an approximately 50% reduction in the number of errors while in another study conducted in the USA, near-miss events (events, actions or processes expected to be severely damaged if not corrected before reaching the patient) were reduced and contributed to patient safety [40,41]. Business processes have been redesigned with lean management applications made in a pathology laboratory in Cleveland and unnecessary movement and time wastes have been prevented [42].
In conclusion, lean management philosophy takes a long time to adopt. Presenting the results of the first phase of a large project is the limitation of the study. The effects of the results obtained with the application of the lean techniques determined in the value stream plan as a result of the study on the costs, results waiting time and error rates can be examined in other studies. In addition, the methodology developed to carry out the study can be an example to lean management studies in medical laboratories. In it is important to note that in order to achieve success in lean methodology, the key elements are: the continuous training of employees and their participation in the process. Furthermore, the introduction of the application primarily in a part of the laboratory and then disseminating it to the pre-analytical and post-analytic processes can lead to the creation of a lean management culture.
FUNDING
This study was supported by the Ankara University
Scientific Research Projects Coordinatorship.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank İlhan AYDIN, M.D. and all pathology
department staff for their contributions.
1) Womack JP, Jones DT. Lean Solutions. New York: Free Press;
2015.
2) Barnas K, Adams E. Beyond Heroes: A Lean Management System
for Healthcare. Wisconsin: ThedaCareCenter; 2014.
3) Graban M. Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety
and Employee Engagement. 2nd. ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press;
2011.
4) Radnor ZJ, Holweg M, Waring J. Lean in healthcare: The unfilled
promise? Soc Sci Med. 2012; 74: 364-71.
5) Protzman C, Kerpchar J, Mayzell G. Leveraging Lean in Medical
Laboratories: Creating a Cost Effective, Standardized, High
Quality, Patient-Focused Operation. Boca Raton: CRC Press;
2015.
6) Lodge A, Bamford D. New development: Using lean techniques
to reduce radiology waiting times. Public Money & Management.
2008; 28:49-52.
7) Leggat SG, Stanton P, Bamber GJ, Bartram T, Gough R, Ballardie
R, Germann K, Sohal A. 4P recommendations for implementing
change, from research in hospitals. Public Money&Management.
2018; 38:45-50.
8) Fournier PL, Jobin MH. Understanding before implementing:
The context of Lean in public healthcare organizations. Public
Money&Management. 2018; 38:37-44.
9) Ben-Tovim D, Bassham JE, Bolch D, Martin MA, Dougherty M,
Szwarcbord M. Lean thinking across a hospital: Redesigning care
at the Flinders Medical Centre. Aust Health Rev. 2007; 31:10-5.
10) Dickson EW, Anguelov Z, Vetterick D, Eller A, Singh S. Use of
lean in the emergency department: A case series of 4 hospitals.
Ann Emerg Med. 2009; 54:504-10.
11) Rutledge J, Xu M, Simpson J. Application of the Toyota
production system improves core laboratory operations. Am J
Clin Pathol. 2010; 133:24-31.
12) John S, Toussaint MD, Berry LL. The promise of lean in health
care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013; 88:74-82.
13) Chiarini A. Waste savings in patient transportation inside
large hospitals using lean thinking tools and logistic solutions.
Leadersh Health Serv. 2013; 26:356-67.
14) Farrokhi FR, Gunther M, Williams B, Blackmore CC. Application
of lean methodology for improved quality and efficiency in
operating room instrument availability. J Healthc Qual. 2015;
37:277-86.
15) Henrique DB, Rentes AF, Filho MG, Esposto KF. A new value
stream mapping approach for healthcare environments.
Production Planning&Control. 2016; 27:24-48.
16) Haron SHA, Ramlan R. Patient process flow improvement: Value
stream mapping. Journal of Management Research. 2015; 7:495-
505.
17) Matos IA, Alves AC, Tereso AP. Lean principles in an operating
room environment: An action research study. Journal of Health
Management. 2016; 18:239-57.
18) Yörükoglu K, Usubütün A, Doğan Ö, Önal B, Aydın Ö. Türkiyede
Patoloji Laboratuvarında Kalite Kontrol. Turk Patoloji Derg.
2009; 25:29-37.
19) Lou AH, Elnenaei MO, Sadek I, Thompson S, Crocker BD,
Nassar BA. Multiple pre- and post-analytical lean approaches to
improvement of the laboratory turnaround time in a large core
laboratory. Clin Biochem. 2017; 50:864-9.
20) Zarbo RJ, Dangelo R. Effective reduction of process defects and
waste in surgical pathology. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007; 128:1015-22.
21) Raab SS, Grzubicki DM, Condel JL, Stewart WR, Turcsanyi BD,
Mahood LK, Becich MJ. Effect of lean method implementation in
the histopathology section of an anatomical pathology laboratory.
J Clin Pathol. 2008; 61:1193-9.
22) Hayes KJ, Reed N, Fitzgerald A, Watt V. Applying lean flows in
pathology laboratory remodelling. J Health Organ Manag. 2014;
28:229-46.
23) Sugianto JZ, Stewart B, Ambruzs JM, Arista A, Park JY, Yokoyama
SC, Luu HS. Appliying the principles of lean production to
gastrointestinal biopsy handling: From the factory floor to the
anatomic pathology laboratory. Lab Medicine. 2015; 46:259-64.
24) Yörükoglu K, Özer E, Alptekin B, Öcal C. Improving
histopathology laboratory productivity: Process consultancy and
A3 problem solving. Turk Patoloji Derg. 2017; 33:47-57.
25) Hospital Statistics (2018). Dışkapı Hastanesi Tanıtım, Available
from: http://www.diskapieah.gov.tr/diskapi1/diskapi-hastanesi/.
Accessed at April 2018.
26) Buesa RJ. Adapting lean to histology laboratories. Ann Diag
Pathol. 2009; 13:322-33.
27) Wojtys EM, Schley L, Overgaard KA, Agbabian J. Applying lean
techniques to improve the patient scheduling process. J Healthc
Qual. 2009; 31:10-6.
28) Alefari M, Salonitis K, Xu Y. The role of leadership in
implementing lean manufacturing. Procedia CIRP. 2017; 63:756-61.
29) Bas T, Akturan U. Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri: NVivo 7.0 ile
Nitel Veri Analizi. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık; 2008.
30) Beaudry JS, Miller L. Research Literacy: A Primer For
Understanding and Using Research. New York: Guildford Press;
2016.
31) Drotz E, Poksinska B. Lean in healthcare from employees
perspectives. J Health Organ Manag. 2014; 28:177-95.
32) Lindskog P, Hemphala J, Eklund J, Eriksson A. Lean in healthcare:
Engagement in development, job satisfaction or exhaustion? J
Hosp Adm. 2016; 5:91-105.
33) Rother M, Shook J. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to
Add Value and Eliminate Muda. Brookline: The Lean Enterprise
Institute; 1999.
34) Clark DM, Silvester K, Knowles S. Lean management systems:
Creating a culture of continuous quality improvement. J Clin
Pathol. 2013; 66:638-43.
35) Sarp N. Toplam Kalite Yönetimi Uygulamaları. Ankara: Siyasal
Kitabevi; 2014.
36) Persoon TJ, Zaleski S, Frerıchs J. Improving preanalytic processes
using the principles of lean production. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;
125:16-25.
37) Serrano L, Hegge P, Sato B, Richmond B, Stahnke L. Using lean
principles to improve quality, patient safety and workflow in
histology and anatomic pathology. Adv Anat Pathol. 2010; 17:
215-21.
38) Quetz JS, Dantas IF, Hirth CG, Brasil CG, Juacaba SF. Preliminary
results of Lean method implementation in a pathology lab from
Northeastern Brazil. J Bras Patol Med Lab. 2015; 51:33-8.
39) Cromwell S, Chiasson DA, Cassidy D, Somers GR. Improving
autopsy report turnaround times by implementing lean
management principles. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2018; 21: 41-7.
40) Michael CW, Naik K, McVicker M. Value stream mapping of
the Pap test processing procedure: A lean approach to improve
quality and efficiency. Am J Pathol. 2013; 139: 574-83.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}