Application of Six Sigma methodology to a diagnostic imaging process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This paper aims to apply the Six Sigma methodology to improve workflow by eliminating the causes of failure in the medical imaging department of a private Turkish hospital. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Implementation of the design, measure, analyse, improve and control (DMAIC) improvement cycle, workflow chart, fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts were employed, together with rigorous data collection in the department. The identification of root causes of repeat sessions and delays was followed by failure, mode and effect analysis, hazard analysis and decision tree analysis. FINDINGS: The most frequent causes of failure were malfunction of the RIS/PACS system and improper positioning of patients. Subsequent to extensive training of professionals, the sigma level was increased from 3.5 to 4.2. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The data were collected over only four months. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Six Sigma's data measurement and process improvement methodology is the impetus for health care organisations to rethink their workflow and reduce malpractice. It involves measuring, recording and reporting data on a regular basis. This enables the administration to monitor workflow continuously. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The improvements in the workflow under study, made by determining the failures and potential risks associated with radiologic care, will have a positive impact on society in terms of patient safety. Having eliminated repeat examinations, the risk of being exposed to more radiation was also minimised. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper supports the need to apply Six Sigma and present an evaluation of the process in an imaging department.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".