The first evidence about conceptual vs analytical lean healthcare research studies.

PURPOSE

Several authors have examined the lean healthcare literature, but besides all efforts made, articles comparing conceptual and analytical studies were not found. Thus, a systematic review is conducted aiming to understand the state of the art of lean healthcare by investigating and comparing how conceptual and analytical articles address tools/methods, application fields, implementation barriers and facilitators and positive and negative impacts.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Articles in English about lean healthcare, published in journals in the last ten years (2009-2018) and indexed in Web of Science (WoS) or Scopus were examined and assessed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) protocol. A qualitative content analysis on the eligible articles was conducted, and results from the conceptual and analytical studies were compared.

FINDINGS

There is a literature gap regarding tools/methods in both conceptual and analytical approaches once they prioritize for different items. Barriers, facilitators and negative impacts are perceived differently within both categories and might require more extensive analysis. The same items prevail in both conceptual and analytical categories when analyzing healthcare fields and positive impacts.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE: There is a lack of articles comparing conceptual and analytical studies concerning lean healthcare. So, this study's relevance is in identifying theoretical and applied research gaps to strengthen the lean healthcare state of the art and to integrate theoretical-applied knowledge. For healthcare professionals, it might provide an overview of the key factors that can promote lean implementation.