Lean Healthcare Processes: Effective Technology Integration and Comprehensive Decision Support Using Requirements Engineering Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare faces many challenges in delivering better service quality and fulfilling, rapidly, changing needs. Lean management approaches, widely adopted in healthcare, provide methods and tools for process improvement. However, the main pitfall of the Lean approach in healthcare is a narrow focus on patient values and needs that often excludes those of caregivers, among others. Caregivers in hospitals are a special type of employees, different from those of most other organizations. They are intensively immersed in a dynamic context in which they treat end-users (patients) with many variables to consider, and multiple critical procedures to follow. It is essential to consider their needs and goals, in addition to organizational goals and values, in any change management process, especially if changes involve new technology. In this paper, we propose a Lean-AbPI model that combines the main concepts of Lean management with the Activity-based Process Integration approach (AbPI). AbPI provides several integration alternatives of new processes into existing ones while analyzing the impact of the changes on stakeholder/user needs, organizational goals, and performance objectives. The use of the Lean-AbPI model is demonstrated through a real hospital case study. The results show that using the model, a comprehensive analysis is provided that leads to improved decision support and implementation-related rationales traceability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".