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

University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, 88 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1L4, Canada.
BMC Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 1.71). 10/2004; 4(1):25. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-25
Source: PubMed


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.
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.
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.

9 Reads
  • Source
    • "Hence, there is an urgent need to identify and set priorities within local decision-making processes. That might not be an easy task, taking into consideration the dual burden of communicable and NCDs in LMIC, the limited financial resources and the competing priorities (Gibson et al. 2004). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To explore the feasibility of using a simple multi-criteria decision analysis method with policy makers/key stakeholders to prioritize cardiovascular disease (CVD) policies in four Mediterranean countries: Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey. Methods: A simple multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method was piloted. A mixed methods study was used to identify a preliminary list of policy options in each country. These policies were rated by different policymakers/stakeholders against pre-identified criteria to generate a priority score for each policy and then rank the policies. Results: Twenty-five different policies were rated in the four countries to create a country-specific list of CVD prevention and control policies. The response rate was 100% in each country. The top policies were mostly population level interventions and health systems' level policies. Conclusions: Successful collaboration between policy makers/stakeholders and researchers was established in this small pilot study. MCDA appeared to be feasible and effective. Future applications should aim to engage a larger, representative sample of policy makers, especially from outside the health sector. Weighting the selected criteria might also be assessed.
    International Journal of Public Health 05/2014; 60(S1). DOI:10.1007/s00038-014-0569-3 · 2.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There may also be challenges with coming to agreement on what a ‘fair process’ looks like. For example, there may be disagreement on appropriate levels of evidence or who is best suited in a given context to provide ‘reasoned’ assessment; however, seeking to follow the normative conditions outlined in Table 2 have been shown many times across contexts and countries to lead to fairer, more legitimate process [6, 18]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Given limited resources, priority setting or choice making will remain a reality at all levels of publicly funded healthcare across countries for many years to come. The pressures may well be even more acute as the impact of the economic crisis of 2008 continues to play out but, even as economies begin to turn around, resources within healthcare will be limited, thus some form of rationing will be required. Over the last few decades, research on healthcare priority setting has focused on methods of implementation as well as on the development of approaches related to fairness and legitimacy and on more technical aspects of decision making including the use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Recently, research has led to better understanding of evaluating priority setting activity including defining 'success' and articulating key elements for high performance. This body of research, however, often goes untapped by those charged with making challenging decisions and as such, in line with prevailing public sector incentives, decisions are often reliant on historical allocation patterns and/or political negotiation. These archaic and ineffective approaches not only lead to poor decisions in terms of value for money but further do not reflect basic ethical conditions that can lead to fairness in the decision-making process. The purpose of this paper is to outline a comprehensive approach to priority setting and resource allocation that has been used in different contexts across countries. This will provide decision makers with a single point of access for a basic understanding of relevant tools when faced with having to make difficult decisions about what healthcare services to fund and what not to fund. The paper also addresses several key issues related to priority setting including how health technology assessments can be used, how performance can be improved at a practical level, and what ongoing resource management practice should look like. In terms of future research, one of the most important areas of priority setting that needs further attention is how best to engage public members.
    Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 01/2014; 12(2). DOI:10.1007/s40258-013-0074-5
  • Source
    • "This is an attempt to gauge whether or not current practice is seen as successful. Past research in this area is surprisingly limited; as Sibbald et al. note, “only a few studies have presented ideas for evaluating the success of priority setting” [46]; see also [43,47-49]. Given the multi-faceted nature of this concept, the summary measure used here can only be a partial indicator. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resource allocation is a key challenge for healthcare decision makers. While several case studies of organizational practice exist, there have been few large-scale cross-organization comparisons. Between January and April 2011, we conducted an on-line survey of senior decision makers within regional health authorities (and closely equivalent organizations) across all Canadian provinces and territories. We received returns from 92 individual managers, from 60 out of 89 organizations in total. The survey inquired about structures, process features, and behaviours related to organization-wide resource allocation decisions. We focus here on three main aspects: type of process, perceived fairness, and overall rating. About one-half of respondents indicated that their organization used a formal process for resource allocation, while the others reported that political or historical factors were predominant. Seventy percent (70%) of respondents self-reported that their resource allocation process was fair and just over one-half assessed their process as 'good' or 'very good'. This paper explores these findings in greater detail and assesses them in context of the larger literature. Data from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada's health system leadership teams.
    BMC Health Services Research 07/2013; 13(1):247. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-13-247 · 1.71 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

9 Reads
Available from