Lean in healthcare: Engagement in development, job satisfaction or exhaustion?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conclusions about implementing the management concept lean in healthcare are contradictory and longitudinal studies are scarce. In particular, little is known of how working conditions contribute to the sustainability of lean in healthcare. The aim of this article is to identify to what extent lean tools (visual follow-up boards, standardised work, 5S [housekeeping], and value stream mapping [VSM]) promote working conditions for employees and managers in healthcare organisations (outcomes: engagement in development, job satisfaction and exhaustion), while considering the context (i.e., job resources and job demands) and aspects of the implementation process. A longitudinal quantitative study was conducted that involved employees and managers in two hospitals and one municipality (n = 448). Applying the job demands-resources model, multiple linear regression models were used. VSM, standardised work and 5S promoted employees and managers’ working conditions when supported by job resources. When no support was provided, visual follow-up boards were inhibiting employees and managers’ job satisfaction. VSM and standardised work were seen as central lean tools. In this sample, the application of lean cannot be considered sustainable as employees and managers’ working conditions deteriorated under the implementation of lean.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it