An economic analysis of a system wide Lean approach: cost estimations for the implementation of Lean in the Saskatchewan healthcare system for 2012–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The costs of investing in health care reform initiatives to improve quality and safety have been underreported and are often underestimated. This paper reports direct and indirect cost estimates for the initial phase of the province-wide implementation of Lean activities in Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: In order to obtain detailed information about each type of Lean event, as well as the total number of corresponding Lean events, we used the Provincial Kaizen Promotion Office (PKPO) Kaizen database. While the indirect cost of Lean implementation has been estimated using the corresponding wage rate for the event participants, the direct cost has been estimated using the fees paid to the consultant and other relevant expenses. RESULTS: The total cost for implementation of Lean over two years (2012-2014), including consultants and new hires, ranged from $44 million CAD to $49.6 million CAD, depending upon the assumptions used. Consultant costs accounted for close to 50% of the total. The estimated cost of Lean events alone ranged from $16 million CAD to $19.5 million CAD, with Rapid Process Improvement Workshops requiring the highest input of resources. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the substantial financial and human investments required to undertake reforms designed to improve quality and contain cost, policy makers must carefully consider whether and how these efforts result in the desired transformations. Evaluation of the outcomes of these investments must be part of the accountability framework, even prior to implementation.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".