Search results

The Uganda Makerere University provides clinical laboratory support to over 70 clients in Uganda. With increased volume, manual data entry errors have steadily increased, prompting laboratory managers to employ the Six Sigma method to evaluate and reduce their problems. The purpose of this paper is to describe how laboratory data entry quality was improved by using Six Sigma.

The Six Sigma Quality Improvement (QI) project team followed a sequence of steps, starting with defining project goals, measuring data entry errors to assess current performance, analyzing data and determining data‐entry error root causes. Finally the team implemented changes and control measures to address the root causes and to maintain improvements. Establishing the Six Sigma project required considerable resources and maintaining the gains requires additional personnel time and dedicated resources.

After initiating the Six Sigma project, there was a 60.5 percent reduction in data entry errors from 423 errors a month (i.e. 4.34 Six Sigma) in the first month, down to an average 166 errors/month (i.e. 4.65 Six Sigma) over 12 months. The team estimated the average cost of identifying and fixing a data entry error to be $16.25 per error. Thus, reducing errors by an average of 257 errors per month over one year has saved the laboratory an estimated $50,115 a year.

The Six Sigma QI project provides a replicable framework for Ugandan laboratory staff and other resource‐limited organizations to promote quality environment. Laboratory staff can deliver excellent care at a lower cost, by applying QI principles.

This innovative QI method of reducing data entry errors in medical laboratories may improve the clinical workflow processes and make cost savings across the health care continuum.

Medication errors are a significant cause of injury in Norwegian hospitals. The purpose of this study is to explore how Lean Six Sigma (LSS) has been used in the Norwegian public health-care context to reduce medication errors.

A mixed method approach was used to gather data from participants working in the four regions served by the Norway health authorities. A survey questionnaire was distributed to 38 health-care practitioners and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 health-care practitioners.

The study finds that the implementation of LSS in the Norwegian public health-care context is still in its infancy. This is amidst several challenges faced by Norwegian hospitals such as the lack of top-management support, lack of LSS training and coaching and a lack of awareness around the benefits of LSS in health care.

Because of the large geographical area, it was difficult to reach participants from all health regions in Norway. However, the study managed to assess the current status of LSS implementation through the participants’ perspectives. This is a fruitful area for future research whereby an action research methodology could be used.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study into the use of LSS methodology in reducing medication errors. In addition, this study is valuable for health-care practitioners and professionals as a guideline to achieve the optimal benefit of LSS implementation to reduce medication errors.