1
|
Ibrahim K, Baron S, Lathlean J, Bridges J, McGrath N, Roberts HC. Moving our care home: A qualitative study of the views and experiences of residents, relatives and staff. Int J Older People Nurs 2022; 17:e12466. [PMID: 35437921 PMCID: PMC9788319 DOI: 10.1111/opn.12466] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2021] [Revised: 10/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Involuntary relocation when care homes close can be detrimental to residents' health and well-being and is associated with increased mortality. There is little formal evidence to support whether planning can mitigate the impact of such moves. This study aimed to understand the experiences of a whole care home relocation where staff and residents relocated together using existing published guidance. METHODS A longitudinal qualitative research study using individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews was conducted between August 2018 and August 2019. Baseline interviews were conducted 6-8 weeks after relocation with follow-up interviews 10-12 months later. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS 27 interviews were conducted; 19 baseline interviews (4 residents, 7 family members, 8 staff) and 8 follow-up interviews (2 residents, 2 family members, 4 staff). Participants' feelings about the relocation were mixed: some reported apprehension before the move but others excitement. Residents and families felt variably involved in planning the move, whereas staff expressed lack of involvement. Time, family support and continuity of care helped participants settle in. The new environment shaped participants' experiences and abilities to adjust, especially the lack of a homely feeling with the new home, the larger size and changes in staff organisation and management. CONCLUSIONS Despite implementation of existing guidance, relocation was still challenging for residents, staff and family members. Future relocations should increase involvement of staff in the planning and design of the home; offer continuous support to those involved; and ensure continuity of care and management style.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kinda Ibrahim
- Academic Geriatric MedicineFaculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK,NIHR Applied Research Collaboration WessexUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Sophie Baron
- Academic Geriatric MedicineFaculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Judith Lathlean
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical EducationFaculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Jackie Bridges
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration WessexUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK,Faculty of Environmental and Life SciencesSchool of Health SciencesUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Nuala McGrath
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration WessexUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK,Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical EducationFaculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Helen C. Roberts
- Academic Geriatric MedicineFaculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK,NIHR Applied Research Collaboration WessexUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK,University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS FTSouthamptonUK,NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (BRC)SouthamptonUK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Burton CR, Williams L, Bucknall T, Fisher D, Hall B, Harris G, Jones P, Makin M, Mcbride A, Meacock R, Parkinson J, Rycroft-Malone J, Waring J. Theory and practical guidance for effective de-implementation of practices across health and care services: a realist synthesis. HEALTH SERVICES AND DELIVERY RESEARCH 2021. [DOI: 10.3310/hsdr09020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
Health-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.
Objectives
Our objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.
Design
A realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.
Participants
In total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.
Data sources
Using keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.
Results
The concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.
Limitations
Some specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.
Conclusions
This review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.
Study registration
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.
Funding
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher R Burton
- School of Allied and Public Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK
| | - Lynne Williams
- School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Tracey Bucknall
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Denise Fisher
- School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Beth Hall
- Library and Archives Services, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Gill Harris
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, UK
| | - Peter Jones
- School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Behavioural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | - Matthew Makin
- North Manchester Care Organisation, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne Mcbride
- Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rachel Meacock
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - John Parkinson
- School of Psychology, College of Human Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
| | | | - Justin Waring
- School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Embrett M, Randall GE, Lavis JN, Dion ML. Conceptualising characteristics of resources withdrawal from medical services: a systematic qualitative synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst 2020; 18:123. [PMID: 33115486 PMCID: PMC7592573 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-020-00630-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Accepted: 09/07/2020] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Terms used to describe government-led resource withdrawal from ineffective and unsafe medical services, including 'rationing' and 'disinvestment', have tended to be used interchangeably, despite having distinct characteristics. This lack of descriptive precision for arguably distinct terms contributes to the obscurity that hinders effective communication and the achievement of evidence-based decision-making. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify the various terms used to describe resource withdrawal and (2) propose definitions for the key or foundational terms, which includes a clear description of the unique characteristics of each. METHODS This is a systematic qualitative synthesis of characteristics and terms found through a search of the academic and grey literature. This approach involved identifying commonly used resource withdrawal terms, extracting data about resource withdrawal characteristics associated with each term and conducting a comparative analysis by categorising elements as antecedents, attributes or outcomes. RESULTS Findings from an analysis of 106 documents demonstrated that terms used to describe resource withdrawal are inconsistently defined and applied. The characteristics associated with these terms, mainly antecedents and attributes, are used interchangeably by many authors but are differentiated by others. Our analysis resulted in the development of a framework that organises these characteristics to demonstrate the unique attributes associated with each term. To enhance precision, these terms were classified as either policy options or patient health outcomes and refined definitions for rationing and disinvestment were developed. Rationing was defined as resource withdrawal that denies, on average, patient health benefits. Disinvestment was defined as resource withdrawal that results in, on average, improved or no change in health benefits. CONCLUSION Agreement on the definition of various resource withdrawal terms and their key characteristics is required for transparent government decision-making regarding medical service withdrawal. This systematic qualitative synthesis presents the proposed definitions of resource withdrawal terms that will promote consistency, benefit public policy dialogue and enhance the policy-making process for health systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Embrett
- Faculty of Health, School of Nursing, Dalhouise University, 5869 University Avenue, PO BOX 15000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada. .,St. Francis Xavier University, 4130 University Avenue, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, B2G2W5, Canada.
| | - Glen E Randall
- Health Policy and Management, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4M4, Canada.,McMaster University, DSB-229, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M4, Canada
| | - John N Lavis
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4L6, Canada.,McMaster Health Forum, MML-417, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4L6, Canada
| | - Michelle L Dion
- Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4L6, Canada.,Kenneth Taylor Hall (KTH) 533, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S4L6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs. BMC Public Health 2019; 19:977. [PMID: 31331312 PMCID: PMC6647147 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7303-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2019] [Accepted: 07/10/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Decisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities. Methods In September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals’ willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes. Results Participants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or “grandfathering” approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted. Conclusions The results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.
Collapse
|
5
|
Ellen ME, Wilson MG, Vélez M, Shach R, Lavis JN, Grimshaw JM, Moat KA. Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst 2018; 16:48. [PMID: 29907158 PMCID: PMC6003114 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-018-0325-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2017] [Accepted: 05/08/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Health systems are increasingly focusing on the issue of ‘overuse’ of health services and how to address it. We developed a framework focused on (1) the rationale and context for health systems prioritising addressing overuse, (2) elements of a comprehensive process and approach to reduce overuse and (3) implementation considerations for addressing overuse. Methods We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis informed by a stakeholder-engagement process. The synthesis identified relevant empirical and non-empirical articles about system-level overuse. Two reviewers independently screened records, assessed for inclusion and conceptually mapped included articles. From these, we selected a purposive sample, created structured summaries of key findings and thematically synthesised the results. Results Our search identified 3545 references, from which we included 251. Most articles (76%; n = 192) were published within 5 years of conducting the review and addressed processes for addressing overuse (63%; n = 158) or political and health system context (60%; n = 151). Besides negative outcomes at the patient, system and global level, there were various contextual factors to addressing service overuse that seem to be key issue drivers. Processes for addressing overuse can be grouped into three elements comprising a comprehensive approach, including (1) approaches to identify overused health services, (2) stakeholder- or patient-led approaches and (3) government-led initiatives. Key implementation considerations include the need to develop ‘buy in’ from stakeholders and citizens. Conclusions Health systems want to ensure the use of high-value services to keep citizens healthy and avoid harm. Our synthesis can be used by policy-makers, stakeholders and researchers to understand how the issue has been prioritised, what approaches have been used to address it and implementation considerations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014013204.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moriah E Ellen
- Department of Health Systems Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, PO Box 653, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel.,Institute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.,McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada
| | - Michael G Wilson
- McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada. .,Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. .,Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
| | - Marcela Vélez
- McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada.,Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Antioquia, Cra. 51d #62-29, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia
| | - Ruth Shach
- Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, 1 Brookings Dr, St Louis, MO, 63130, United States of America
| | - John N Lavis
- McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada.,Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.,Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.,Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.,Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA, United States of America
| | - Jeremy M Grimshaw
- Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.,Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Kaelan A Moat
- McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada.,Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.,Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Harris C, Allen K, Ramsey W, King R, Green S. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 11: reporting outcomes of an evidence-driven approach to disinvestment in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18:386. [PMID: 29843702 PMCID: PMC5975394 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3172-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2017] [Accepted: 05/01/2018] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Wayne Ramsey
- Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Richard King
- Medicine Program, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Sally Green
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Raftery J, Hanney S, Greenhalgh T, Glover M, Blatch-Jones A. Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-254. [PMID: 27767013 DOI: 10.3310/hta20760] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review. OBJECTIVES (1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. DATA SOURCES We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014. REVIEW METHODS This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015. RESULTS The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers. DISCUSSION The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established. LIMITATIONS There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme. CONCLUSIONS Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Raftery
- Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Steve Hanney
- Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, London, UK
| | - Trish Greenhalgh
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Matthew Glover
- Health Economics Research Group (HERG), Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University London, London, UK
| | - Amanda Blatch-Jones
- Wessex Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Harris C, Green S, Ramsey W, Allen K, King R. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 9: conceptualising disinvestment in the local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:633. [PMID: 28886735 PMCID: PMC5591535 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2507-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2016] [Accepted: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Sally Green
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Wayne Ramsey
- Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Richard King
- Medicine Program, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Harris C, Green S, Elshaug AG. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:632. [PMID: 28886740 PMCID: PMC5590199 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2016] [Accepted: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Sally Green
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Adam G Elshaug
- Menzies Centre for Health Policy, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.,Lown Institute, Brookline, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Dyer T, Brooke V, Garrubba M, Melder A, Voutier C, Gust A, Farjou D. 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. BMC Health Serv Res 2017. [PMID: 28637473 PMCID: PMC5480160 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2388-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cara Waller
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Tim Dyer
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Vanessa Brooke
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Marie Garrubba
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Angela Melder
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Catherine Voutier
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Anthony Gust
- Clinical Information Management, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Dina Farjou
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Harris C, Allen K, Brooke V, Dyer T, Waller C, King R, Ramsey W, Mortimer D. 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. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:370. [PMID: 28545430 PMCID: PMC5445482 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2269-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2016] [Accepted: 04/26/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Vanessa Brooke
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Tim Dyer
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Cara Waller
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Richard King
- Medicine Program, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Wayne Ramsey
- Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Duncan Mortimer
- Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Brooke V. 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. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:340. [PMID: 28486953 PMCID: PMC5423420 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2207-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2017] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background This is the third in a series of papers reporting a program of Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. Leaders in a large Australian health service planned to establish an organisation-wide, systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment. In order to introduce new systems and processes for disinvestment into existing decision-making infrastructure, we aimed to understand where, how and by whom resource allocation decisions were made, implemented and evaluated. We also sought the knowledge and experience of staff regarding previous disinvestment activities. Methods Structured interviews, workshops and document analysis were used to collect information from multiple sources in an environmental scan of decision-making systems and processes. Findings were synthesised using a theoretical framework. Results Sixty-eight respondents participated in interviews and workshops. Eight components in the process of resource allocation were identified: Governance, Administration, Stakeholder engagement, Resources, Decision-making, Implementation, Evaluation and, where appropriate, Reinvestment of savings. Elements of structure and practice for each component are described and a new framework was developed to capture the relationships between them. A range of decision-makers, decision-making settings, type and scope of decisions, criteria used, and strengths, weaknesses, barriers and enablers are outlined. The term ‘disinvestment’ was not used in health service decision-making. Previous projects that involved removal, reduction or restriction of current practices were driven by quality and safety issues, evidence-based practice or a need to find resource savings and not by initiatives where the primary aim was to disinvest. Measuring resource savings is difficult, in some situations impossible. Savings are often only theoretical as resources released may be utilised immediately by patients waiting for beds, clinic appointments or surgery. Decision-making systems and processes for resource allocation are more complex than assumed in previous studies. Conclusion There is a wide range of decision-makers, settings, scope and type of decisions, and criteria used for allocating resources within a single institution. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report this level of detail and to introduce eight components of the resource allocation process identified within a local health service. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2207-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Cara Waller
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Vanessa Brooke
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Harris C, Allen K, King R, Ramsey W, Kelly C, Thiagarajan M. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:328. [PMID: 28476159 PMCID: PMC5420107 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2211-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Richard King
- Medicine Program, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wayne Ramsey
- Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Cate Kelly
- Medical Services, Melbourne Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Malar Thiagarajan
- Ageing and Aged Care Branch, Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Harris C, Ko H, Waller C, Sloss P, Williams P. 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. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:329. [PMID: 28476155 PMCID: PMC5420096 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2212-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
| | - Henry Ko
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia.,NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cara Waller
- Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Pamela Sloss
- Consumer Representative, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| | - Pamela Williams
- Consumer Representative, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Harris C, Green S, Ramsey W, Allen K, King R. 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. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17:323. [PMID: 28472962 PMCID: PMC5418706 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-017-2210-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2016] [Accepted: 03/31/2017] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Harris
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia. .,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Sally Green
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Wayne Ramsey
- Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kelly Allen
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.,Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Richard King
- Medicine Program, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|