Evaluating priority setting success in healthcare: a pilot study

被引:26
|
作者
Sibbald, Shannon L. [1 ]
Gibson, Jennifer L. [2 ]
Singer, Peter A. [3 ,4 ]
Upshur, Ross [2 ,5 ]
Martin, Douglas K. [2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Western Ontario, Sch Hlth Studies, London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Joint Ctr Bioeth, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
[3] Univ Hlth Network, McLaughlin Rotman Ctr Global Hlth, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Fac Med, MaRS Ctr, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Sch Publ Hlth, Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
[6] Univ Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
关键词
CANCER DRUGS; DECISIONS; RESOURCES; ECONOMICS;
D O I
10.1186/1472-6963-10-131
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: In healthcare today, decisions are made in the face of serious resource constraints. Healthcare managers are struggling to provide high quality care, manage resources effectively, and meet changing patient needs. Healthcare managers who are constantly making difficult resource decisions desire a way to improve their priority setting processes. Despite the wealth of existing priority setting literature (for example, program budgeting and marginal analysis, accountability for reasonableness, the 'describe-evaluate-improve' strategy) there are still no tools to evaluate how healthcare resources are prioritised. This paper describes the development and piloting of a process to evaluate priority setting in health institutions. The evaluation process was designed to examine the procedural and substantive dimensions of priority setting using a multi-methods approach, including a staff survey, decision-maker interviews, and document analysis. Methods: The evaluation process was piloted in a mid-size community hospital in Ontario, Canada while its leaders worked through their annual budgeting process. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the data. Results: The evaluation process was both applicable to the context and it captured the budgeting process. In general, the pilot test provided support for our evaluation process and our definition of success, (i.e., our conceptual framework). Conclusions: The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide a simple, practical way for an organization to better understand what it means to achieve success in its priority setting activities and identify areas for improvement. In order for the process to be used by healthcare managers today, modification and contextualization of the process are anticipated. As the evaluation process is applied in more health care organizations or applied repeatedly in an organization, it may become more streamlined.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Priority setting for prevention and control of coronary heart disease in the occupied Palestinian territory: a pilot study
    Ghandour, Rula
    Khatib, Rana
    Shoaibi, Azza
    Capewell, Simon
    Critchley, Julia
    Ahmad, Balsam
    Husseini, Abdullatif
    LANCET, 2013, 382 : 11 - 11
  • [42] Setting the surgical wound care agenda across two healthcare districts: A priority setting approach
    Gillespie, Brigid M.
    Walker, Rachel
    Lin, Frances
    Roberts, Shelley
    Nieuwenhoven, Paul
    Perry, Jodie
    Birgan, Sean
    Gerraghy, Elizabeth
    Probert, Rosalind
    Chaboyer, Wendy
    COLLEGIAN, 2020, 27 (05) : 529 - 534
  • [43] Economic effects of priority setting in healthcare: a scoping review of current evidence
    Leskela, Riikka-Leena
    Vanhala, Antero
    Gehrmann, Katariina
    Haapatalo, Erik
    Ranta, Jussi
    Patja, Kristiina
    Kousa, Ilona
    Tapanainen, Pasi
    Mika, Pantzar
    Tikkinen, K.
    Ignatius, Eveliina
    Ojanen, Tuomas
    Torkki, Paulus
    BMJ OPEN, 2024, 14 (11):
  • [44] PUBLIC VIEWS ON PRIORITY-SETTING CRITERIA FOR LIMITED HEALTHCARE RESOURCE
    Bae, E. Y.
    Lim, M. K.
    Bae, G.
    Lee, B.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2019, 22 : S805 - S805
  • [45] The responsibility principle. Contradictions of priority-setting in Swedish healthcare
    Schirmer, Werner
    Michailakis, Dimitris
    ACTA SOCIOLOGICA, 2011, 54 (03) : 267 - 282
  • [46] Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience
    Robinson, Suzanne
    Williams, Iestyn
    Dickinson, Helen
    Freeman, Tim
    Rumbold, Benedict
    SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2012, 75 (12) : 2386 - 2393
  • [47] Discrimination Based on Personal Responsibility: Luck Egalitarianism and Healthcare Priority Setting
    Albertsen, Andreas
    CAMBRIDGE QUARTERLY OF HEALTHCARE ETHICS, 2024, 33 (01) : 23 - 34
  • [48] A politics of priority setting: Ideas, interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation
    Smith, Neale
    Mitton, Craig
    Davidson, Alan
    Williams, Iestyn
    PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION, 2014, 29 (04) : 331 - 347
  • [49] Eliciting values of decision makers and members of the public in healthcare priority setting
    Cornelissen, Evelyn
    Mitton, Craig
    Smith, Neale
    Bryan, Stirling
    Peacock, Stuart
    Joy, Janet
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE METHODS, 2011, 10 (04): : 466 - 466
  • [50] Evaluating and reducing cognitive load should be a priority for machine learning in healthcare
    Daniel E. Ehrmann
    Sara N. Gallant
    Sujay Nagaraj
    Sebastian D. Goodfellow
    Danny Eytan
    Anna Goldenberg
    Mjaye L. Mazwi
    Nature Medicine, 2022, 28 : 1331 - 1333