Lean thinking has been applied successfully in a wide variety of healthcare settings. While lean theory emphasises a holistic view, most cases report narrower technical applications with limited organisational reach. To better realise the potential benefits, healthcare organisations need to directly involve senior management, work across functional divides, pursue value creation for patients and other customers, and nurture a long-term view of continual improvement.

Health care organizations around the world are investing heavily in value-based health care (VBHC), and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) has been suggested as the cost-component of VBHC capable of addressing costing challenges. The aim of this study is to explore why TDABC has been applied in health care, how its application reflects a seven-step method developed specifically for VBHC, and implications for the future use of TDABC. This is a systematic review following the PRISMA statement. Qualitative methods were employed to analyze data through content analyses. TDABC is applicable in health care and can help to efficiently cost processes, and thereby overcome a key challenge associated with current cost-accounting methods The method's ability to inform bundled payment reimbursement systems and to coordinate delivery across the care continuum remains to be demonstrated in the published literature, and the role of TDABC in this cost-accounting landscape is still developing. TDABC should be gradually incorporated into functional systems, while following and building upon the recommendations outlined in this review. In this way, TDABC will be better positioned to accurately capture the cost of care delivery for conditions and to control cost in the effort to create value in health care.

The variation in process performance and sustainability of results indicate that lean efforts should be carefully adapted to the complexity of the care process and to the educational commitment of healthcare organizations. Ultimately, the ability to adapt lean to a particular context of application depends on the development of routines that effectively support learning from daily practices.

Research on organizational interventions needs to meet the objectives of both researchers and participating organizations. This duality means that real-world impact has to be considered throughout the research process, simultaneously addressing both scientific rigour and practical relevance. This discussion paper aims to offer a set of principles, grounded in knowledge from various disciplines that can guide researchers in designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions. Inspired by Mode 2 knowledge production, the principles were developed through a transdisciplinary, participatory and iterative process where practitioners and academics were invited to develop, refine and validate the principles. The process resulted in 10 principles: 1) Ensure active engagement and participation among key stakeholders; 2) Understand the situation (starting points and objectives); 3) Align the intervention with existing organizational objectives; 4) Explicate the program logic; 5) Prioritize intervention activities based on effort-gain balance; 6) Work with existing practices, processes, and mindsets; 7) Iteratively observe, reflect, and adapt; 8) Develop organizational learning capabilities; 9) Evaluate the interaction between intervention, process, and context; and 10) Transfer knowledge beyond the specific organization. The principles suggest how the design, implementation, and evaluation of organizational interventions can be researched in a way that maximizes both practical and scientific impact.

BackgroundThe “Triple Aim” – provision of a better care experience and improved population health at a lower cost – may be theoretically sound, but paradoxical in practice as it forces together the logics of management and medicine. The aim of this study was to explore how staff and managers understand the change imperative inherent to the Triple Aim and the mental models underlying their understanding.MethodsThis qualitative study builds on thirty semi-structured interviews conducted with managers, nurses, midwives, medical secretaries, and physicians at a department of Gynecology and Obstetrics in Denmark who successfully cut costs through staff and bed reductions and, from what we can ascertain, maintained care quality. Mental models were articulated from a content analysis of the interviews.ResultsStaff and managers identified with the different dimensions of the Triple Aim along classic professional divides, i.e. nurses and midwives focused on patient experience, physicians on health outcomes, and manager on all three. Underlying these, we found four mental models. The understanding of change was guided by a Professional ethos (inner drive to improve care) and a Socio-political discourse (external requirement to become more efficient) mental model. The understanding of economics was guided by a You-get-what-you-pay-for and by a More-bang-for-the-buck mental model. A complex interplay could be discerned between all four, which led staff to see the Triple Aim as a dilemma between quality and economics and a threat to clinical care and quality, whereas managers saw it as a paradox that invited improvement efforts. Despite these differences, managers chose a change strategy in line with staff mental models.ConclusionsThe practical challenges inherent to the Triple Aim may be symptomatic of the interactions between the different mental models that guide staff and managers’ understanding and choice of change strategies. Pursuit of quality improvement in the face of financial constraints (the essence of the Triple Aim) may be facilitated through conscious exploration of these empirically identified mental models. Managers might do well to translate the socio-political discourse into a change process that resonates with the mental models held by staff.