Decision maker views on priority setting in the Vancouver Island Health Authority

Author:

Dionne Francois,Mitton Craig,Smith Neale,Donaldson Cam

Abstract

Abstract Background Decisions regarding the allocation of available resources are a source of growing dissatisfaction for healthcare decision-makers. This dissatisfaction has led to increased interest in research on evidence-based resource allocation processes. An emerging area of interest has been the empirical analysis of the characteristics of existing and desired priority setting processes from the perspective of decision-makers. Methods We conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 18 senior managers and medical directors with the Vancouver Island Health Authority, an integrated health care provider in British Columbia responsible for a population of approximately 730,000. Interviews were transcribed and content-analyzed, and major themes and sub-themes were identified and reported. Results Respondents identified nine key features of a desirable priority setting process: inclusion of baseline assessment, use of best evidence, clarity, consistency, clear and measurable criteria, dissemination of information, fair representation, alignment with the strategic direction and evaluation of results. Existing priority setting processes were found to be lacking on most of these desired features. In addition, respondents identified and explicated several factors that influence resource allocation, including political considerations and organizational culture and capacity. Conclusion This study makes a contribution to a growing body of knowledge which provides the type of contextual evidence that is required if priority setting processes are to be used successfully by health care decision-makers.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy

Reference17 articles.

1. Evans RG: Extravagant Americans, Healthier Canadians: The Bottom Line in North American Health Care. In Canada and the United States: Differences that Count. 3rd edition. Edited by: Thomas DM. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press; 2006.

2. Mitton C, Donaldson C: Priority Setting Toolkit: A guide to the use of economics in healthcare decision making. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2004.

3. Martin DK, Singer PA: A Strategy to Improve Priority Setting in Health Care Institutions. Health Care Analysis 2003,11(1):59–68. 10.1023/A:1025338013629

4. Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L: Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: A Case Study. BMJ 2000,321(7272):1316–18. 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1316

5. Greener I, Powell J: Health Authorities, Priority-Setting and resource allocation: A Study in Decision-Making in New Labour's NHS. Social Policy and Administration 2003,37(1):35–48. 10.1111/1467-9515.00322

Cited by 16 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3