![]() Successful priority setting is a desirable goal for decision makers however there is no agreed upon definition for successful priority setting, so there is no way of knowing if an organization achieves it. Greater insight into stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions of achieving successful priority setting could improve the way in which institutions and healthcare organizations set priorities. One way to approach this problem is to determine what relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean. ![]() Decision makers struggle in this environment to set priorities appropriately, particularly because they lack consensus about which values should guide their decisions. The sustainability of healthcare systems worldwide is threatened by a growing demand for services and expensive innovative technologies. Several studies have reported that leaders desire an explicit framework to guide priority setting and acknowledged leadership as a key area where improvement can make the most difference. Mitton and Donaldson found decision makers were "frustrated with the lack of an explicit priority setting framework" and questioned "the credibility of resource allocation decision-making" (p. Hospital administrators, constrained by budget restrictions and confronted by increasing demand, find it a particularly difficult challenge to maintain services and quality, while controlling costs decision makers (or leaders) lack guidance and information for priority setting and are unaware of priority setting tools available to them. Consequently, priority setting has been described as a series of unconnected experiments with no systematic mechanism for capturing the lessons, or evaluating the strengths and weaknesses, of each experiment. There is relatively little interaction between decision makers at the three levels, or among institutions, regarding the setting of priorities. regional health authorities (RHAs), hospitals), and micro (e.g. Priority setting, also known as rationing or resource allocation, is a complex and difficult problem faced by all decision makers at all levels of all health systems, including macro (e.g. The ten elements identified in this research provide guidance for decision makers and a common language to discuss priority setting success and work toward improving priority setting efforts. To our knowledge, this is the first framework that describes successful priority setting. The ten elements specify both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of priority setting and relate to both process and outcome components. ![]() This paper synthesizes the findings from three studies into a framework of ten separate but interconnected elements germane to successful priority setting: stakeholder understanding, shifted priorities/reallocation of resources, decision making quality, stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction, positive externalities, stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process, information management, consideration of values and context, and revision or appeals mechanism. Three separate empirical studies were completed using qualitative data collection methods (one-on-one interviews with healthcare decision makers from across Canada focus groups with representation of patients, caregivers and policy makers and Delphi study including scholars and decision makers from five countries). ![]() The goal of this research was to develop a conceptual framework for successful priority setting. One way to approach this problem is to determine what all relevant stakeholders understand successful priority setting to mean.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |