Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting

Towards Green and Sustainable Healthcare: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Green Leadership in the Healthcare Sector

The health sector is one of the keys to sustainable development. Although it is directly related to only one Sustainable Development Goal (Goal 3, "Ensuring a healthy life and promoting well-being at all ages"), the sector itself, which aims to protect health, is paradoxically at the same time the main emitter of environmental pollutants that have a negative impact on health itself. Therefore, sustainability has become a key priority for health sector organizations, and leadership in this area is essential at all levels. Scientific research plays a particular role here, helping to more clearly define the links between environmental sustainability and the health effects of a polluted environment and climate change as well as indicating the direction of actions needed and disseminating good practices that can help accelerate the adoption of efforts towards climate neutrality and sustainable development of health sector organizations. The aim of this article is to present the current state of the art and future research scenarios in the field of green and sustainable healthcare through a literature review by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method to perform a bibliometric analysis of papers published in 2012-2022. The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database is used for this purpose. A total of 144 papers are included for analysis, categorized based on eight fields: author(s), title, year of publication, country, journal, scientific category, and number of citations. Based on the results, themes for future research on green leadership in the healthcare sector are identified and recommended.

Influencing mechanism of the use behavior of clinical practice guidelines on antimicrobials: evidence from the integration of theory of reasoned action and organizational readiness for change

Background

To confront the serious challenge of antimicrobial resistance, using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) standardizing the prescription behavior is vital. However, the overall mechanisms remains largely unknown as to how guidelines' use behavior can be improved. This study aimed to identify the determinants and investigate their relationship to bridge the knowledge gap of overall influencing mechanism of the use behavior of CPGs on antimicrobials.

Methods

By integrating theory of reasoned action (TRA) and organizational readiness for change (ORC), a structured questionnaire was developed to cover potential determinants that affect physicians’ use behaviors of CPGs on antimicrobials at the individual-level (attitude, subjective norm, and behavioral intention) and organizational-level (top management support and organizational resource allocation). A multi-stage random sampling was implemented to collect data from physicians in secondary and tertiary hospitals from eastern, central and western China. Structural equation model (SEM) was used to test the proposed hypotheses, and to analyze the relationship and mechanism among the factors.

Result

In total, 815 physicians were included. Most physicians demonstrated a positive tendency toward the use of CPGs on antimicrobials, with a mean score of 3.95 (SD = 0.70). The reliability and validity analysis showed the questionnaire constructed from the integrated theoretical model of TRA and ORC was acceptable. The SEM validation results also showed that the top management support (β = 0.688, P < 0.001), organizational resource allocation (β = 0.129, P < 0.001), individual attitudes (β = 0.164, P < 0.001), subjective norms (β = 0.322, P < 0.001), and behavioral intentions (β = 0.424, P < 0.001) were positively associated with physicians’ use behaviors of CPGs on antimicrobials. Besides, top management support, organizational resource allocation, attitudes and subjective norms showed their mediating effects on regarding use behavior, which was 0.305, 0.129, 0.164 and 0.201, respectively.

Conclusions

This study revealed the influence mechanism of the use of CPGs on antimicrobials from the individual and organizational perspectives. These findings will not only help formulate future strategies to promote the use of CPGs on antimicrobials, but also provide clues for more effective prescription interventions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-02019-w.

Cost-effectiveness of physical activity intervention in children - results based on the Physical Activity and Nutrition in Children (PANIC) study

Background

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a 2-year physical activity (PA) intervention combining family-based PA counselling and after-school exercise clubs in primary-school children compared to no intervention from an extended service payer’s perspective.

Methods

The participants included 506 children (245 girls, 261 boys) allocated to an intervention group (306 children, 60 %) and a control group (200 children, 40 %). The children and their parents in the intervention group had six PA counselling visits, and the children also had the opportunity to participate in after-school exercise clubs. The control group received verbal and written advice on health-improving PA at baseline. A change in total PA over two years was used as the outcome measure. Intervention costs included those related to the family-based PA counselling, the after-school exercise clubs, and the parents’ taking time off to travel to and participate in the counselling. The cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle. The costs per increased PA hour (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) were based on net monetary benefit (NMB) regression adjusted for baseline PA and background variables. The results are presented with NMB and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results

Over two years, total PA increased on average by 108 h in the intervention group (95 % confidence interval [CI] from 95 to 121, p < 0.001) and decreased by 65.5 h (95 % CI from 81.7 to 48.3, p < 0.001) in the control group, the difference being 173.7 h. the incremental effectiveness was 87 (173/2) hours. For two years, the intervention costs were €619 without parents’ time use costs and €860 with these costs. The costs per increased PA hour were €6.21 without and €8.62 with these costs. The willingness to pay required for 95 % probability of cost-effectiveness was €14 and €19 with these costs. The sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER without assuming this linear change in PA were €3.10 and €4.31.

Conclusions

The PA intervention would be cost-effective compared to no intervention among children if the service payer’s willingness-to-pay for a 1-hour increase in PA is €8.62 with parents’ time costs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01803776. Registered 4 March 2013 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=01803776&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-021-01181-0.

Internal barriers to efficiency: why disinvestments are so difficult. Identifying and addressing internal barriers to disinvestment of health technologies

Although efficiency is a core concept in health economics, its impact on health care practice still is modest. Despite an increased pressure on resource allocation, a widespread use of low-value care is identified. Nonetheless, disinvestments are rare. Why is this so? This is the key question of this paper: why are disinvestments not more prevalent and improving the efficiency of the health care system, given their sound foundation in health economics, their morally important rationale, the significant evidence for a long list of low-value care and available alternatives? Although several external barriers to disinvestments have been identified, this paper looks inside us for mental mechanisms that hamper rational assessment, implementation, use and disinvestment of health technologies. Critically identifying and assessing internal inclinations, such as cognitive biases, affective biases and imperatives, is the first step toward a more rational handling of health technologies. In order to provide accountable and efficient care we must engage in the quest against the figments of our minds; to disinvest in low-value care in order to provide high-value health care.

Factors affecting procurement of wound care products: a qualitative study of hospital managers and clinicians

Objective To identify factors that influence procurement and disinvestment decisions for wound care products in the acute care setting. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. Eighteen face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled senior clinical and non-clinical managers from three Australian acute care hospitals with responsibility for consumables procurement and disinvestment decisions. Data were coded and analysed thematically. Results Three main themes (Systems and triggers, Evidence-free zone, Getting the governance right) with sub-themes were identified that reflect that: (1) procurement processes were often ad hoc and workarounds common. Disinvestment was poorly understood and opportunities were missed to reduce use of low value products ; (2) product selection was commonly based on clinician preference, contractual obligations and information from industry representatives; and (3) improved evidence-based governance and processes are needed to connect procurement and disinvestment decisions and to minimise the influences of clinician preference and industry representatives on product selection. Conclusions Systematic and evidence-based approaches are needed to strengthen procurement and disinvestment decisions related to consumables such as wound care products and to minimise the purchasing of low-value products Decision-making frameworks should consider cost and clinical effectiveness and enable the identification of opportunities to disinvest from low-value products. What is known about the topic? High volume-low unit cost healthcare consumables such as wound care products are a major component of healthcare expenditure. Disinvestment from low-value wound care products has potential to improve patient outcomes and optimise health resources. What does this paper add? Disinvestment was poorly understood and considered in isolation from procurement decisions. Procurement decisions were rarely informed by research evidence, with clinicians exercising considerable freedom to make purchasing decisions based on product preference and industry information. Frameworks and guidelines are needed to guide procurement and disinvestment decision-making for wound care products. What are the implications for practitioners? New models for procurement and disinvestment decision-making for wound care products could help to strengthen decision-making processes, facilitate evidence-based product choices and also prompt consideration of removal of low-value products.

Bibliometric Review of the Knowledge Base on Healthcare Management for Sustainability, 1994–2018

In response to the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), health care organizations throughout the world have adopted management initiatives designed to increase their sustainability. This review of research used bibliometric methods to analyze a dataset comprised of 477 documents extracted from the Scopus database. The review sought to document research on sustainable healthcare management (SHM) that has accumulated over the past 25 years. Results indicated that the intellectual structure of this body of knowledge is comprised of three schools of thought: (1) sustainable change in health care services, (2) innovations in managing health care operations, and (3) prioritizing and allocating resources for sustainability. The review also highlighted the recent topical focus of research in this literature. Key topics were linked to organization and management of health care services, quality of patient care, and sustainability of health care delivery.

Barriers to ideal outcomes after pediatric liver transplantation

Long-term survival for children who undergo LT is now the rule rather than the exception. However, a focus on the outcome of patient or graft survival rates alone provides an incomplete and limited view of life for patients who undergo LT as an infant, child, or teen. The paradigm has now appropriately shifted to opportunities focused on our overarching goals of "surviving and thriving" with long-term allograft health, freedom of complications from long-term immunosuppression, self-reported well-being, and global functional health. Experts within the liver transplant community highlight clinical gaps and potential barriers at each of the pretransplant, intra-operative, early-, medium-, and long-term post-transplant stages toward these broader mandates. Strategies including clinical research, innovation, and quality improvement targeting both traditional as well as PRO are outlined and, if successfully leveraged and conducted, would improve outcomes for recipients of pediatric LT.

Disinvestment in cancer care: a survey investigating European countries' opinions and views

Background

The current economic context calls for rationalizing health resources that can be pursued through disinvestment from low value health technologies to invest in the best performing ones, ensuring high healthcare quality. Oncology is a field where, because of high costs of health technologies and rapid innovation, disinvestment is crucial.

Methods

On this basis, the research team investigated through a survey, based on a questionnaire, opinions and views of representatives of European countries about disinvestment, in terms of fields of application, potential advocates and barriers, specifically focusing on cancer care.

Results

A total of 17 questionnaires were filled in (response rate: 32.1%). The survey showed disinvestment is applied in several countries as a tool for containing health care expenditures and identifying obsolete technologies/ineffective interventions. Clinicians' resistance to change and industries' opposition are recognized as the most important barriers to the implementation of disinvestment policies. Potential targets of disinvestment in cancer are seen in diagnostic and therapeutic areas.

Conclusion

Despite the agreement on fields of waste and of disinvestment policies, operational methods to put disinvestment in place are lacking. Since they should rely on an inclusive assessment of the technology, Health Technology Assessment may represent a good approach.

How does priority setting for resource allocation happen in commissioning dental services in a nationally led, regionally delivered system: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with NHS England dental commissioners

OBJECTIVES

To understand approaches to priority setting for healthcare service resource allocation at an operational level in a nationally commissioned but regionally delivered service.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and a Framework analysis.

SETTING

National Health Service dentistry commissioning teams within subregional offices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

All 31 individuals holding the relevant role (dental lead commissioner in subregional offices) were approached directly and from this 14 participants were recruited, with 12 interviews completed. Both male and female genders and all regions were represented in the final sample.

RESULTS

Three major themes arose. First, 'Methods of priority setting and barriers to explicit approaches' was a common theme, specifically identifying the main methods as: perpetuating historical allocations, pressure from politicians and clinicians and use of needs assessments while barriers were time and skill deficits, a lack of national guidance and an inflexible contracting arrangements stopping resource allocation. Second, 'Relationships with key stakeholders and advisors' were discussed, showing the important nature of relationships with clinical advisors but variation in the quality of these relationships was noted. Finally, 'Tensions between national and local responsibilities' were illustrated, where there was confusion about where power and autonomy lay.

CONCLUSIONS

Commissioners recognised a need for resource allocation but relied on clinical advice and needs assessment in order to set priorities. More explicit priority setting was prevented by structure of the commissioning system and standard national contracts with providers. Further research is required to embed and simplify adoption of tools to aid priority setting.

Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences

In this study we describe, synthesise, and discuss the experiences and views of doctors who participate as technical experts in health care priority setting, reflect on the ethical significance of the challenges to procedural and distributive justice they encounter, and propose an empirically derived practical approach to improving the fairness of the process. Between August 2015 and July 2016 we conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 20 doctors in NSW, Australia, purposively selected on the basis of their participation in macroallocation. Participant selection, data collection, and analysis were carried out according to the principles of grounded moral analysis, an empirical bioethics methodology closely based on grounded theory. The doctors we interviewed attached ethical significance to a broad range of procedural concerns that militated both against the prospect of distributive justice and against their own wellbeing: unfair access to opportunities to participate in macroallocation, sexist behaviours and structures, rewards for rule-breakers, cynical and insincere practices, waste, duplication, and inefficiency, and being taken for granted. On the basis of our data, we hypothesise that the institutional conditions for macroallocation do not support the care of medical participants in deliberations. Evaluating our findings against the 'accountability for reasonableness' framework of Daniels and Sabin, we expose as incompatible with the conditions for procedural justice processes that treat participants in macroallocation unfairly or cause them to have moral unease about the justice of the enterprise. We suggest a supplementary procedure that positions commitment to the care and just treatment of participants as a foundation of any macroallocation procedure.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the final paper in a thematic series reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was established to explore a systematic, integrated, evidence-based organisation-wide approach to disinvestment in a large Australian health service network. This paper summarises the findings, discusses the contribution of the SHARE Program to the body of knowledge and understanding of disinvestment in the local healthcare setting, and considers implications for policy, practice and research.

Discussion

The SHARE program was conducted in three phases. Phase One was undertaken to understand concepts and practices related to disinvestment and the implications for a local health service and, based on this information, to identify potential settings and methods for decision-making about disinvestment. The aim of Phase Two was to implement and evaluate the proposed methods to determine which were sustainable, effective and appropriate in a local health service. A review of the current literature incorporating the SHARE findings was conducted in Phase Three to contribute to the understanding of systematic approaches to disinvestment in the local healthcare context.

SHARE differed from many other published examples of disinvestment in several ways: by seeking to identify and implement disinvestment opportunities within organisational infrastructure rather than as standalone projects; considering disinvestment in the context of all resource allocation decisions rather than in isolation; including allocation of non-monetary resources as well as financial decisions; and focusing on effective use of limited resources to optimise healthcare outcomes.

Conclusion

The SHARE findings provide a rich source of new information about local health service decision-making, in a level of detail not previously reported, to inform others in similar situations. Multiple innovations related to disinvestment were found to be acceptable and feasible in the local setting. Factors influencing decision-making, implementation processes and final outcomes were identified; and methods for further exploration, or avoidance, in attempting disinvestment in this context are proposed based on these findings. The settings, frameworks, models, methods and tools arising from the SHARE findings have potential to enhance health care and patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3172-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 8: developing, implementing and evaluating an evidence dissemination service in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the eighth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS.

METHODS

Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes.

RESULTS

Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified.

CONCLUSION

An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the ninth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The disinvestment literature has broadened considerably over the past decade; however there is a significant gap regarding systematic, integrated, organisation-wide approaches. This debate paper presents a discussion of the conceptual aspects of disinvestment from the local perspective.

DISCUSSION

Four themes are discussed: Terminology and concepts, Motivation and purpose, Relationships with other healthcare improvement paradigms, and Challenges to disinvestment. There are multiple definitions for disinvestment, multiple concepts underpin the definitions and multiple alternative terms convey these concepts; some definitions overlap and some are mutually exclusive; and there are systematic discrepancies in use between the research and practice settings. Many authors suggest that the term 'disinvestment' should be avoided due to perceived negative connotations and propose that the concept be considered alongside investment in the context of all resource allocation decisions and approached from the perspective of optimising health care. This may provide motivation for change, reduce disincentives and avoid some of the ethical dilemmas inherent in other disinvestment approaches. The impetus and rationale for disinvestment activities are likely to affect all aspects of the process from identification and prioritisation through to implementation and evaluation but have not been widely discussed. A need for mechanisms, frameworks, methods and tools for disinvestment is reported. However there are several health improvement paradigms with mature frameworks and validated methods and tools that are widely-used and well-accepted in local health services that already undertake disinvestment-type activities and could be expanded and built upon. The nature of disinvestment brings some particular challenges for policy-makers, managers, health professionals and researchers. There is little evidence of successful implementation of 'disinvestment' projects in the local setting, however initiatives to remove or replace technologies and practices have been successfully achieved through evidence-based practice, quality and safety activities, and health service improvement programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the construct of 'disinvestment' may be problematic at the local level. A new definition and two potential approaches to disinvestment are proposed to stimulate further research and discussion.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation

Background

This is the tenth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. After more than a decade of research, there is little published evidence of active and successful disinvestment. The paucity of frameworks, methods and tools is reported to be a factor in the lack of success. However there are clear and consistent messages in the literature that can be used to inform development of a framework for operationalising disinvestment. This paper, along with the conceptual review of disinvestment in Paper 9 of this series, aims to integrate the findings of the SHARE Program with the existing disinvestment literature to address the lack of information regarding systematic organisation-wide approaches to disinvestment at the local health service level.

Discussion

A framework for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting is proposed. Definitions for essential terms and key concepts underpinning the framework have been made explicit to address the lack of consistent terminology. Given the negative connotations of the word ‘disinvestment’ and the problems inherent in considering disinvestment in isolation, the basis for the proposed framework is ‘resource allocation’ to address the spectrum of decision-making from investment to disinvestment. The focus is positive: optimising healthcare, improving health outcomes, using resources effectively.

The framework is based on three components: a program for decision-making, projects to implement decisions and evaluate outcomes, and research to understand and improve the program and project activities. The program consists of principles for decision-making and settings that provide opportunities to introduce systematic prompts and triggers to initiate disinvestment. The projects follow the steps in the disinvestment process. Potential methods and tools are presented, however the framework does not stipulate project design or conduct; allowing application of any theories, methods or tools at each step. Barriers are discussed and examples illustrating constituent elements are provided.

Conclusions

The framework can be employed at network, institutional, departmental, ward or committee level. It is proposed as an organisation-wide application, embedded within existing systems and processes, which can be responsive to needs and priorities at the level of implementation. It can be used in policy, management or clinical contexts.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 7: supporting staff in evidence-based decision-making, implementation and evaluation in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the seventh in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE Program was a systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for resource allocation within a large Australian health service. It aimed to facilitate proactive use of evidence from research and local data; evidence-based decision-making for resource allocation including disinvestment; and development, implementation and evaluation of disinvestment projects. From the literature and responses of local stakeholders it was clear that provision of expertise and education, training and support of health service staff would be required to achieve these aims. Four support services were proposed. This paper is a detailed case report of the development, implementation and evaluation of a Data Service, Capacity Building Service and Project Support Service. An Evidence Service is reported separately.

METHODS

Literature reviews, surveys, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. Existing theoretical frameworks were adapted for evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes.

RESULTS

Surveys and interviews identified current practice in use of evidence in decision-making, implementation and evaluation; staff needs for evidence-based practice; nature, type and availability of local health service data; and preferred formats for education and training. The Capacity Building and Project Support Services were successful in achieving short term objectives; but long term outcomes were not evaluated due to reduced funding. The Data Service was not implemented at all. Factors influencing the processes and outcomes are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Health service staff need access to education, training, expertise and support to enable evidence-based decision-making and to implement and evaluate the changes arising from those decisions. Three support services were proposed based on research evidence and local findings. Local factors, some unanticipated and some unavoidable, were the main barriers to successful implementation. All three proposed support services hold promise as facilitators of EBP in the local healthcare setting. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment.

METHODS

Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed.

RESULTS

Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised.

CONCLUSION

This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 5: developing a model for evidence-driven resource allocation in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the fifth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. This paper synthesises the findings from Phase One of the SHARE Program and presents a model to be implemented and evaluated in Phase Two. Monash Health, a large healthcare network in Melbourne Australia, sought to establish an organisation-wide systematic evidence-based program for disinvestment. In the absence of guidance from the literature, the Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, an in-house ‘Evidence Based Practice Support Unit’, was asked to explore concepts and practices related to disinvestment, consider the implications for a local health service and identify potential settings and methods for decision-making.

Methods

Mixed methods were used to capture the relevant information. These included literature reviews; online questionnaire, interviews and structured workshops with a range of stakeholders; and consultation with experts in disinvestment, health economics and health program evaluation. Using the principles of evidence-based change, the project team worked with health service staff, consumers and external experts to synthesise the findings from published literature and local research and develop proposals, frameworks and plans.

Results

Multiple influencing factors were extracted from these findings. The implications were both positive and negative and addressed aspects of the internal and external environments, human factors, empirical decision-making, and practical applications. These factors were considered in establishment of the new program; decisions reached through consultation with stakeholders were used to define four program components, their aims and objectives, relationships between components, principles that underpin the program, implementation and evaluation plans, and preconditions for success and sustainability. The components were Systems and processes, Disinvestment projects, Support services, and Program evaluation and research. A model for a systematic approach to evidence-based resource allocation in a local health service was developed.

Conclusion

A robust evidence-based investigation of the research literature and local knowledge with a range of stakeholders resulted in rich information with strong consistent messages. At the completion of Phase One, synthesis of the findings enabled development of frameworks and plans and all preconditions for exploration of the four main aims in Phase Two were met.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2208-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

Background

This is the second in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Rising healthcare costs, continuing advances in health technologies and recognition of ineffective practices and systematic waste are driving disinvestment of health technologies and clinical practices that offer little or no benefit in order to maximise outcomes from existing resources. However there is little information to guide regional health services or individual facilities in how they might approach disinvestment locally. This paper outlines the investigation of potential settings and methods for decision-making about disinvestment in the context of an Australian health service.

Methods

Methods include a literature review on the concepts and terminology relating to disinvestment, a survey of national and international researchers, and interviews and workshops with local informants. A conceptual framework was drafted and refined with stakeholder feedback.

Results

There is a lack of common terminology regarding definitions and concepts related to disinvestment and no guidance for an organisation-wide systematic approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare service.

A summary of issues from the literature and respondents highlight the lack of theoretical knowledge and practical experience and provide a guide to the information required to develop future models or methods for disinvestment in the local context.

A conceptual framework was developed. Three mechanisms that provide opportunities to introduce disinvestment decisions into health service systems and processes were identified. Presented in order of complexity, time to achieve outcomes and resources required they include 1) Explicit consideration of potential disinvestment in routine decision-making, 2) Proactive decision-making about disinvestment driven by available evidence from published research and local data, and 3) Specific exercises in priority setting and system redesign.

Conclusion

This framework identifies potential opportunities to initiate disinvestment activities in a systematic integrated approach that can be applied across a whole organisation using transparent, evidence-based methods. Incorporating considerations for disinvestment into existing decision-making systems and processes might be achieved quickly with minimal cost; however establishment of new systems requires research into appropriate methods and provision of appropriate skills and resources to deliver them.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2211-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 4: exploring opportunities and methods for consumer engagement in resource allocation in a local healthcare setting

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Healthcare decision-makers have sought to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of services through removal or restriction of practices that are unsafe or of little benefit, often referred to as 'disinvestment'. A systematic, integrated, evidence-based program for disinvestment was being established within a large Australian health service network. Consumer engagement was acknowledged as integral to this process. This paper reports the process of developing a model to integrate consumer views and preferences into an organisation-wide approach to resource allocation.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted and interviews and workshops were undertaken with health service consumers and staff. Findings were drafted into a model for consumer engagement in resource allocation which was workshopped and refined.

RESULTS

Although consumer engagement is increasingly becoming a requirement of publicly-funded health services and documented in standards and policies, participation in organisational decision-making is not widespread. Several consistent messages for consumer engagement in this context emerged from the literature and consumer responses. Opportunities, settings and activities for consumer engagement through communication, consultation and participation were identified within the resource allocation process. Sources of information regarding consumer values and perspectives in publications and locally-collected data, and methods to use them in health service decision-making, were identified. A model bringing these elements together was developed.

CONCLUSION

The proposed model presents potential opportunities and activities for consumer engagement in the context of resource allocation.

Sustainability in Health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 1: introducing a series of papers reporting an investigation of disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

This is the first in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE). The SHARE Program is an investigation of concepts, opportunities, methods and implications for evidence-based investment and disinvestment in health technologies and clinical practices in a local healthcare setting. The papers in this series are targeted at clinicians, managers, policy makers, health service researchers and implementation scientists working in this context. This paper presents an overview of the organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach taken by one Australian healthcare network and provides an introduction and guide to the suite of papers reporting the experiences and outcomes.