Priority setting in surgery: improve the process and share the learning

Developing a prioritisation framework for patients in need of coronary artery angiography

BACKGROUND

Effective waiting list management and comprehensive prioritisation can provide timely delivery of appropriate services to ensure that the patient needs are met and increase equity in the provision of health services. We developed a prioritisation framework for patients in need of coronary artery angiography (CAA).

METHODS

We used a multi-methods approach to elicit effective factors that affect CAA patient prioritisation. Qualitative data wase collected using semi-structured interviews with 15 experts. The final set of factors was selected using experts' consensus through modifed Delphi technique. The framework was finalised during expert panel meetings.

RESULTS

212 effective factors were identified based on the literature review, interviews, and expert panel discussion of them, 37 factors were selected for modifed Delphi study. Following two rounds of Delphi discussions, seven final factors were selected and weighed by ten experts using pair-wise comparisons. The following weights were given: the severity of pain and symptoms (0.22), stress testing (0.18), background diseases (0.15), number of myocardial infarctions (0.15), waiting time (0.10), reduction of economic and social performance (0.12), and special conditions (0.08).

CONCLUSION

Clinical effective factors were important for CAA prioritisation framework. Using this framework can potentially lead to improved accountability and justice in the health system.

Political prioritization and the competing definitions of adolescent pregnancy in Kenya: An application of the Public Arenas Model

BACKGROUND

Approximately one in every five adolescent girls in Kenya has either had a live birth or is pregnant with her first child. There is an urgent need to understand the language and symbols used to represent adolescent pregnancy, if the current trend in adolescent pregnancy is to be reversed. Agreement on the definition of a societal problem is an important precursor to a social issue's political prioritization and priority setting.

METHODS

We apply the Public Arenas Model to appraise the environments, definitions, competition dynamics, principles of selection and current actors involved in problem-solving and prioritizing adolescent pregnancy as a policy issue. Using a focused ethnographic approach, we undertook semi-structured interviews with 14 members of adolescent sexual reproductive health networks at the national level and conducted thematic analysis of the interviews.

FINDINGS

We found that existing definitions center around adolescent pregnancy as a "disease" that needs prevention and treatment, socially deviant behaviour that requires individual agency, and a national social concern that drains public resources and therefore needs to be regulated. These competing definitions contribute to the rarity of the topic achieving traction within the political agenda and contribute to conflicting solutions, such as lowering the legal age of consenting to sex, while limiting access to contraceptive information and services to minors.

CONCLUSION

This paper provides a timely theoretical approach to draw attention to the different competing definitions and subsequent divergent interpretations of the problem of adolescent pregnancy in Kenya. Adolescent reproductive health stakeholders need to be familiar with the existing definitions and deliberately reframe this important social problem for better political prioritization and resource allocation. We recommend a definition of adolescent pregnancy that cuts across different arenas, and leverages already existing dominant and concurrent social and economic issues that are already on the agenda table.

Medical Equipment Adoption in Greek Hospitals: The Case of CT Scanners

The paper aims to unravel the elements which constitute the decision-making process concerning new medical technologies in the context of the Greek Health System, where there are more than one decision makers. Computerized tomography is used as a case study. Using a unique data setting that refers to the total number of the Greek Public Hospitals, the pattern of adoption is outlined. At the second stage, data is associated with regional and geographical characteristics as well as information related to the hospital efficiency. A probit model is used for the factor analysis and a survival function hazard model for time to adopt. Results indicate that the models used are suitable for examining the factors influencing the adoption of medical technologies as well as the time that such technologies are adopted. It was found that the size of the hospital and its plenitude positively influence not only the probability of adoption but also the time of adoption of computerized tomography. Findings are encouraging; they support the use of the model in studying the adoption of other medical technologies too and can be used also as a tool by policy makers to assist the process of investment in new health technologies.

Waiting for surgery from the patient perspective

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the impact of waiting for elective surgery from the patient perspective, with a focus on maximum tolerance, quality of life, and the nature of the waiting experience. Searches were conducted using Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and HealthSTAR. Twenty-seven original research articles were identified which included each of these three themes. The current literature suggested that first, patients tend to state longer wait times as unacceptable when they experienced severe symptoms or functional impairment. Second, the relationship between length of wait and health-related quality of life depended on the nature and severity of proposed surgical intervention at the time of booking. Third, the waiting experience was consistently described as stressful and anxiety provoking. While many patients expressed anger and frustration at communication within the system, the experience of waiting was not uniformly negative. Some patients experienced waiting as an opportunity to live full lives despite pain and disability. The relatively unexamined relationship between waiting, illness and patient experience of time represents an area for future research.

Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate decisions selecting patients for anti-retroviral treatment (ART) in Uganda.

METHODS

We held 39 semi-structured interviews with 41 health professionals holding various selection roles and 5 focus groups with 47 HIV/AIDS patients in diverse ART programs. Decisions were evaluated using accountability for reasonableness (A4R). A4R considers a decision fair when those whom it affects can know the decision and its complete rationale (Publicity), can consider the rationale relevant (Relevance) and can appeal against the decision (Appeals), and each of these conditions - Publicity, Relevance and Appeals - is enforced (Enforcement).

RESULTS

All ART candidates were told whether, and many were also told why they could receive ART or not. Programs used various means to promote candidates' understanding. Many, but not all, rationales could be considered relevant. Appeal mechanisms existed but were not used to challenge selection decisions or criteria, which were considered unchangeable. There was enforcement of criteria but insufficient enforcement of Publicity and Relevance, and none of Appeals.

CONCLUSION

Decisions are insufficiently fair and legitimate. Effective mechanisms should be created for appeals, enforcement, and communication of complete rationales. Nonetheless, decisions and rationales are available, and criteria applied even-handedly. Such aspects are a benchmark for less adequate decision-making reported elsewhere.

Implementing accountability for reasonableness--the case of pharmaceutical reimbursement in Sweden

This paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the 'principally important' decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.

Principles versus procedures in making health care coverage decisions: addressing inevitable conflicts

It has been suggested that focusing on procedures when setting priorities for health care avoids the conflicts that arise when attempting to agree on principles. A prominent example of this approach is "accountability for reasonableness." We will argue that the same problem arises with procedural accounts; reasonable people will disagree about central elements in the process. We consider the procedural condition of appeal process and three examples of conflicts over coverage decisions: a patients' rights law in Norway, health technologies coverage recommendations in the UK, and care withheld by HMOs in the US. In each case a process is at the center of controversy, illustrating the difficulties in establishing procedures that are widely accepted as legitimate. Further work must be done in developing procedural frameworks.

Drug formulary decision-making in two regional health authorities in British Columbia, Canada

OBJECTIVES

Growing pharmaceutical demands challenge healthcare organizations to set drug funding priorities (i.e. establish a formulary list). This responsibility typically rests with pharmacy and therapeutics (P&T) committees, yet how the process transpires within regional health authorities is unclear. The purpose of this study was to construct an explanatory model of drug formulary priority-setting as it occurs within regional health authorities.

METHODS

A grounded theory approach was employed to study the practices of two regional health authority P&T committees in British Columbia, Canada. Data sources spanned committee documents, meeting observations (n=4), and semi-structured interviews with committee members (n=15). Data analysis involved coding using the constant comparative technique and writing analytic memos.

RESULTS

Regional P&T committees engaged in two activities related to drug formulary priority-setting: developing auto-substitution policies and reviewing drug addition requests. Four processes were central to decision-making: (i) negotiating margins of therapeutic advantage; (ii) seeking value for the resources allocated; (iii) interfacing between community and institutional settings; (iv) situating decisions within an organizational context.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight opportunities for institutions to improve the fairness of agenda-setting practices, and for additional collaboration between policy-makers who prioritize drugs for publicly funded formularies applicable to institutional versus community settings.

Adoption of an innovation to repair aortic aneurysms at a Canadian hospital: a qualitative case study and evaluation

Background

Priority setting in health care is a challenge because demand for services exceeds available resources. The increasing demand for less invasive surgical procedures by patients, health care institutions and industry, places added pressure on surgeons to acquire the appropriate skills to adopt innovative procedures. Such innovations are often initiated and introduced by surgeons in the hospital setting. Decision-making processes for the adoption of surgical innovations in hospitals have not been well studied and a standard process for their introduction does not exist. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate the decision-making process for the adoption of a new technology for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) in an academic health sciences centre to better understand how decisions are made for the introduction of surgical innovations at the hospital level.

Methods

A qualitative case study of the decision to adopt EVAR was conducted using a modified thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews. Accountability for Reasonableness was used as a conceptual framework for fairness in priority setting processes in health care organizations.

Results

There were two key decisions regarding EVAR: the decision to adopt the new technology in the hospital and the decision to stop hospital funding. The decision to adopt EVAR was based on perceived improved patient outcomes, safety, and the surgeons' desire to innovate. This decision involved very few stakeholders. The decision to stop funding of EVAR involved all key players and was based on criteria apparent to all those involved, including cost, evidence and hospital priorities. Limited internal communications were made prior to adopting the technology. There was no formal means to appeal the decisions made.

Conclusion

The analysis yielded recommendations for improving future decisions about the adoption of surgical innovations. ese empirical findings will be used with other case studies to help develop guidelines to help decision-makers adopt surgical innovations in Canadian hospitals.

Resource allocation in orthopaedics: economic evaluation to priority setting

In 2000 the World Health Organization launched the "Bone and Joint Decade" campaign in part to promote cost-effective treatments. This will impact the organization, delivery, and funding of health care as the population ages. However, it is well recognized that resources in health care are limited and it is essential the resources available are used to best effect. Thus, there has been greater emphasis in the orthopaedic literature on the use of economics. Still, there is little discussion of whether and how the results of these economic methods can be further used to aid resource allocation decisions. We discuss the suitability of economic methods for priority setting in orthopaedic surgery, arguing economic evaluation alone is not sufficient for addressing resource allocation decisions. We also describe an alternative approach to priority setting that has been steadily gaining prominence within health economics--program budgeting and marginal analysis--and use a working example from the United Kingdom National Health Service to illustrate its application within orthopaedic surgery.

How are decisions to introduce new surgical technologies made? Advanced laparoscopic surgery at a Canadian community hospital: A qualitative case study and evaluation

The introduction of many new surgical technologies is associated with increased costs and uncertainty regarding risks and benefits. Currently, little is known about how decisions are made regarding the adoption of surgical innovations. To study the decision-making process for adoption of advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures at a community hospital in Toronto, Canada, we used qualitative case study methods. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with key informants. We performed a modified thematic analysis of the data, using the conceptual framework for priority setting known as accountability for reasonableness, which consists of 4 conditions: relevance, publicity, appeals, and enforcement. Several advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures were introduced at the hospital between 2000 and 2005. During that time, there was no structured, explicit process for making decisions about introducing new surgical technologies. Use of the new surgical technologies was relevant, as measured by the perception of patient benefit and alignment with the hospital's strategic priorities. There was no systematic structure in place to oversee publicity, appeals, or enforcement. The decision to adopt advanced laparoscopic surgery at a community hospital in Toronto, Canada, was made primarily on the basis of its relevance to patient care. The process for making decisions about the adoption of new surgical technologies can be improved.

Priority setting and cardiac surgery: A qualitative case study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe priority setting in cardiac surgery and evaluate it using an ethical framework, "accountability for reasonableness".

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac surgery is an expensive part of hospital budgets. Priority setting decisions are made daily regarding ever increasing volumes of patients. While much attention has been paid to the management of cardiac surgery waiting lists, little empirical research exists into the way actual decision makers deliberate upon and resolve priority setting decisions on a daily basis. A key goal of priority setting, in cardiac surgical areas as well as others, is fairness. "Accountability for reasonableness" is a leading ethical framework for fair priority setting, and can be used to identify opportunities for improvement (i.e. make it fairer) and highlight good practices.

METHODS

A case study was conducted to examine the process of priority setting processes at three University of Toronto affiliated cardiac surgery centres. Relevant documents were examined, weekly triage rounds were observed for 27 months, and interviews were carried out with 23 key participants including cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, and triage nurses. In data analysis, the conditions of "accountability for reasonableness" (relevance, publicity, appeals and enforcement) were used as an analytic lens.

RESULTS

RELEVANCE

While decisions may appear to be based strictly upon clinical criteria (e.g. coronary anatomy); non-clinical criteria also have an impact upon decision-making (e.g. patients' lifestyle choices, type of surgical practice and departmental constraints on resource use). Participants stated that these factors influence their decision-making and can result in unfair and inconsistent decisions. PUBLICITY: Non-clinical reasons are not publicly accessible, nor are they clearly acknowledged in discussions between cardiac clinicians. APPEALS: There are mechanisms for challenging decisions however without access to the non-clinical reasons, this can be problematic. Enforcement: Participants cite little departmental or institutional support to engage in fairer priority setting.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study to describe actual priority setting practices for cardiac surgery practices and evaluate them using an ethical framework, in this case, "accountability for reasonableness". Priority setting decision making in cardiac surgery has been described and evaluated with lessons learned include specific findings regarding the contextual and dynamic nature of decision making in cardiac surgery. The approach of combining a descriptive case study with the ethical framework of "accountability for reasonableness" is a useful tool for identifying good practices and highlighting areas for improvement. The good practices (including surgeons strongly facilitating patients seeking second opinions and approaching patients from a holistic perspective in consideration for surgery) and areas for improvement (including lack of transparency and lack of institutional support for "fair" decision making) that we have identified in this case study can be used to reflect upon the present tool used in priority setting and improve the fairness and legitimacy of priority setting decision making in cardiac surgery.

Priority setting in developing countries health care institutions: the case of a Ugandan hospital

BACKGROUND

Because the demand for health services outstrips the available resources, priority setting is one of the most difficult issues faced by health policy makers, particularly those in developing countries. However, there is lack of literature that describes and evaluates priority setting in these contexts. The objective of this paper is to describe priority setting in a teaching hospital in Uganda and evaluate the description against an ethical framework for fair priority setting processes--Accountability for Reasonableness.

METHODS

A case study in a 1,500 bed national referral hospital receiving 1,320 out patients per day and an average budget of 13.5 million US dollars per year. We reviewed documents and carried out 70 in-depth interviews (14 health planners, 40 doctors, and 16 nurses working at the hospital). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis employed the modified thematic approach to describe priority setting, and the description was evaluated using the four conditions of Accountability for Reasonableness: relevance, publicity, revisions and enforcement.

RESULTS

Senior managers, guided by the hospital strategic plan make the hospital budget allocation decisions. Frontline practitioners expressed lack of knowledge of the process.

RELEVANCE

Priority is given according to a cluster of factors including need, emergencies and patient volume. However, surgical departments and departments whose leaders "make a lot of noise" are also prioritized. Publicity: Decisions, but not reasons, are publicized through general meetings and circulars, but this information does not always reach the frontline practitioners. Publicity to the general public was through ad hoc radio programs and to patients who directly ask. Revisions: There were no formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. Enforcement: There were no mechanisms to ensure adherence to the four conditions of a fair process.

CONCLUSION

Priority setting decisions at this hospital do not satisfy the conditions of fairness. To improve, the hospital should: (i) engage frontline practitioners, (ii) publicize the reasons for decisions both within the hospital and to the general public, and (iii) develop formal mechanisms for challenging the reasoning. In addition, capacity strengthening is required for senior managers who must accept responsibility for ensuring that the above three conditions are met.

What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?

BACKGROUND

Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, occurs at all levels of every health care system. Daniels and Sabin have proposed a framework for priority setting in health care institutions called 'accountability for reasonableness', which links priority setting to theories of democratic deliberation. Fairness is a key goal of priority setting. According to 'accountability for reasonableness', health care institutions engaged in priority setting have a claim to fairness if they satisfy four conditions of relevance, publicity, appeals/revision, and enforcement. This is the first study which has surveyed the views of hospital decision makers throughout an entire health system about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions. The purpose of this study is to elicit hospital decision-makers' self-report of the fairness of priority setting in their hospitals using an explicit conceptual framework, 'accountability for reasonableness'.

METHODS

160 Ontario hospital Chief Executive Officers, or their designates, were asked to complete a survey questionnaire concerning priority setting in their publicly funded institutions. Eight-six Ontario hospitals completed this survey, for a response rate of 54%. Six close-ended rating scale questions (e.g. Overall, how fair is priority setting at your hospital?), and 3 open-ended questions (e.g. What do you see as the goal(s) of priority setting in your hospital?) were used.

RESULTS

Overall, 60.7% of respondents indicated their hospitals' priority setting was fair. With respect to the 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions, respondents indicated their hospitals performed best for the relevance (75.0%) condition, followed by appeals/revision (56.6%), publicity (56.0%), and enforcement (39.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

For the first time hospital Chief Executive Officers within an entire health system were surveyed about the fairness of priority setting practices in their institutions using the conceptual framework 'accountability for reasonableness'. Although many hospital CEOs felt that their priority setting was fair, ample room for improvement was noted, especially for the enforcement condition.

Setting priorities in health care organizations: criteria, processes, and parameters of success

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and regional health authorities must set priorities in the face of resource constraints. Decision-makers seek practical ways to set priorities fairly in strategic planning, but find limited guidance from the literature. Very little has been reported from the perspective of Board members and senior managers about what criteria, processes and parameters of success they would use to set priorities fairly.

DISCUSSION

We facilitated workshops for board members and senior leadership at three health care organizations to assist them in developing a strategy for fair priority setting. Workshop participants identified 8 priority setting criteria, 10 key priority setting process elements, and 6 parameters of success that they would use to set priorities in their organizations. Decision-makers in other organizations can draw lessons from these findings to enhance the fairness of their priority setting decision-making.

SUMMARY

Lessons learned in three workshops fill an important gap in the literature about what criteria, processes, and parameters of success Board members and senior managers would use to set priorities fairly.