An evaluation of the wastes and obstacles within the context of lean management in emergency services
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate the types of waste within the context of lean management practices in emergency departments and to provide recommendations for addressing the challenges associated with their implementation. The aim is to enhance the effectiveness of performance improvement processes and to improve patient satisfaction. The opinions of 8 experts in the field were collected and analyzed using fuzzy AHP. The analysis revealed that defects (29%) are the most common type of waste in emergency departments, with a significant impact on efficiency and patient safety. This is followed by extra handling (15%) and waiting time (13%). Addressing these issues, along with other types of waste such as wasted talent, movement, transportation, inventory, and overproduction, is critical to improving overall operational performance. The overcoming of integration challenges necessitates the implementation of a multifaceted strategy, which should encompass the commitment of leadership, the engagement of staff, and the establishment of a culture of continuous improvement. The success of lean management is contingent upon several factors, including leadership support, multidisciplinary collaboration, process streamlining, and the ability to navigate resistance to change.
Keywords:
Hospital emergency services decision making lean six sigmaDownloads
References
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Holistence Publications

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Everyone who is listed as an author in this article should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work and should take public responsibility for it.

