Neale Smith

Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE While much literature has debated public engagement in health care decision-making, there is no consensus on when public engagement should be sought and how it should be obtained. We conducted a scoping review to examine public engagement in one specific area: priority setting and resource allocation. METHOD The review drew upon a broad range of health and non-health literature in an attempt to elicit what is known and not known on this topic, and through this to outline any guidance to assist decision-makers and identify where efforts for future research should be directed. RESULTS Governments appear to recognize benefits in consulting multiple publics using a range of methods, though more traditional approaches to engagement continue to predominate. There appears to be growing interest in deliberative approaches to public engagement, which are more commonly on-going rather than one-off and more apt to involve face-to-face contact. However, formal evaluation of public engagement efforts is rare. Also absent is any real effort to demonstrate how public views might be integrated with other decision inputs when allocating social resources. CONCLUSION While some strands can be taken to inform current priority setting activity, this scoping review identified many gaps and highlights numerous areas for further research.

Moral Distress Among Health System Managers: Exploratory Research in Two British Columbia Health Authorities

Moral distress is a concept used to date in clinical literature to describe the experience of staff in circumstances in which they are prevented from delivering the kind of bedside care they believe is expected of them, professionally and ethically. Our research objective was to determine if this concept has relevance in terms of key health care managerial functions, such as priority setting and resource allocation. We conducted interviews and focus groups with mid- and senior-level managers in two British Columbia (Canada) health authorities. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using constant comparison to identify key themes related to moral distress. Both mid- and senior-level managers appear to experience moral distress, with both similarities and differences in how their experiences manifest. Several examples of this concept were identified including the obligation to communicate or ‘sell’ organizational decisions or policies with which a manager personally may disagree and situations where scarce resources compel managers to place staff in situations where they meet with predictable and potentially avoidable risks. Given that moral distress appears to be a relevant issue for at least some health care managers, further research is warranted into its exact nature, prevalence, and possible organizational and personal responses.

Evaluation of the impact of program budgeting and marginal analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority

Objective: The objective of this research was to provide further insights into the ability of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) to help health care decision-makers in deciding where to allocate scarce resources so as to best meet their organizational objectives. Methods: We report on a case study of PBMA implementation. The main source of information was two sets of semi-structured evaluation interviews conducted with senior decision-makers after each of the first two years of PBMA implementation in Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA), Canada. These interviews were analysed thematically, with initial coding based upon themes that had been identified in the previous stage of the research. Results: Many of the initial problems with PBMA implementation resolved themselves over time as participants became more familiar with the process. However, some problems needed to be addressed explicitly through changes in procedures. Establishing procedures for handling ‘must-dos’ (i.e. spending priorities, that are externally mandated) did not replace the need to define explicitly the extent of the organizations discretionary spending authority. Conclusion: Faced with claims that typically outstrip available resources, health care decision-makers need a process to guide allocation decisions. PBMA has demonstrated at VIHA an ability to handle some of the key issues associated with this challenge. Our analysis has produced lessons that should facilitate future implementation but has also shown that resource allocation criteria selection and the extent of executive discretion are likely to be ongoing challenges.

Changing priority setting practice: The role of implementation in practice change

BACKGROUND Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers in choosing among resource demands. This paper describes and evaluates the process of implementing PBMA in a Canadian regional health authority, and draws out key lessons learned from this experience. METHODS Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured participant interviews (twelve post year-1; nine post year-2), meeting attendance, and document review. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparison technique. Other data were analyzed to evaluate PBMA implementation. RESULTS Desire for more clarity and for PBMA adaptations emerged as overarching themes. Participants desired greater clarity of their roles and how PBMA should be used to achieve PBMAs potential benefits. They argued that each PBMA stage should be useful independent of the others so that implementation could be adapted. To help improve clarity and ensure that resources were available to support PBMA, participants requested an organizational readiness and capacity assessment. CONCLUSION We suggest tactics by which PBMA may be more closely aligned with real-world priority setting practice. Our results also contribute to the literature on PBMA use in various healthcare settings. Highlighting implementation issues and potential responses to these should be of interest to decision makers implementing PBMA and other evidence-informed practices.

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

BackgroundDecisions 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsRespondents 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.ConclusionThis 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.

A politics of priority setting: Ideas, interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation

Across a range of health care systems there is a responsibility placed on meso-level budget holders to set priorities and allocate resources within constrained budgets. The literature suggests that these organizations have typically defaulted to historical and/or political processes for decision making. Whilst the literature on resource allocation in health care attests to the political nature of decision making, this has remained largely under-theorized and therefore priority setters may be unfamiliar with the analytic benefits of applying insights from the broader political sciences. Conversely, policy scientists may know relatively little about existing research on how healthcare organizations make allocative and redistributive decisions. This paper aims to open a dialogue between these solitudes by exploring political effects on health care priority setting, using the interpretive concepts ideas, interests and institutions.

Qualitative methodologies in health-care priority setting research

Priority setting research in health economics has traditionally employed quantitative methodologies and been informed by post-positivist philosophical assumptions about the world and the nature of knowledge. These approaches have been rewarded with well-developed and validated tools. However, it is now commonly noted that there has been limited uptake of economic analysis into actual priority setting and resource allocation decisions made by health-care systems. There seem to be substantial organizational and political barriers. The authors argue in this paper that understanding and addressing these barriers will depend upon the application of qualitative research methodologies. Some efforts in this direction have been attempted; however these are theoretically under-developed and seldom rooted in any of the established qualitative research traditions. Two such approaches - narrative inquiry and discourse analysis - are highlighted here. These are illustrated with examples drawn from a real-world priority setting study. The examples demonstrate how such conceptually powerful qualitative traditions produce distinctive findings that offer unique insight into organizational contexts and decision-maker behavior. We argue that such investigations offer untapped benefits for the study of organizational priority setting and thus should be pursued more frequently by the health economics research community.

Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey

BackgroundResource 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.MethodsBetween 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.ResultsAbout 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.ConclusionData from this large-scale cross-jurisdictional survey helps to illustrate common challenges and areas of positive performance among Canada’s health system leadership teams.

Using evaluation theory in priority setting and resource allocation

PURPOSE Public sector interest in methods for priority setting and program or policy evaluation has grown considerably over the last several decades, given increased expectations for accountable and efficient use of resources and emphasis on evidence-based decision making as a component of good management practice. While there has been some occasional effort to conduct evaluation of priority setting projects, the literatures around priority setting and evaluation have largely evolved separately. In this paper, the aim is to bring them together. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The contention is that evaluation theory is a means by which evaluators reflect upon what it is they are doing when they do evaluation work. Theories help to organize thinking, sort out relevant from irrelevant information, provide transparent grounds for particular implementation choices, and can help resolve problematic issues which may arise in the conduct of an evaluation project. FINDINGS A detailed review of three major branches of evaluation theory--methods, utilization, and valuing--identifies how such theories can guide the development of efforts to evaluate priority setting and resource allocation initiatives. Evaluation theories differ in terms of their guiding question, anticipated setting or context, evaluation foci, perspective from which benefits are calculated, and typical methods endorsed. ORIGINALITY/VALUE Choosing a particular theoretical approach will structure the way in which any priority setting process is evaluated. The paper suggests that explicitly considering evaluation theory makes key aspects of the evaluation process more visible to all stakeholders, and can assist in the design of effective evaluation of priority setting processes; this should iteratively serve to improve the understanding of priority setting practices themselves.

An evaluation tool for assessing performance in priority setting and resource allocation: multi-site application to identify strengths and weaknesses:

Introduction An evaluation tool should help improve formal priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes in Canada and elsewhere. These are crucial to maximizing value from limited resources. Methods On the basis of case studies, balanced scorecard development protocols and use-focused evaluation principles, an evaluation tool was developed based on an existing framework for high PSRA performance and implemented in two health care organizations in British Columbia, Canada. Results Implementation of the tool identified areas of strength, improvement and weakness in the pilot organizations’ processes for PSRA including: communication, staff engagement and culture. Refinements were identified and incorporated into the tool for future application. Conclusion This is the first documented multi-site application of such an evaluation tool. Broader dissemination should have use both in further refining the basis of the tool and in catalysing improved performance of PSRA practice.