19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the ‘embedded Economist’ program and evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Systematic approaches to the inclusion of economic evaluation in national healthcare decision-making are usual. It is less common for economic evaluation to be routinely undertaken at the ‘local-level’ (e.g. in a health service or hospital) despite the largest proportion of health care expenditure being determined at this service level and recognition by local health service decision makers of the need for capacity building in economic evaluation skills. This paper describes a novel program – the embedded Economist (eE) Program. The eE Program aims to increase local health service staff awareness of, and develop their capacity to access and apply, economic evaluation principles in decision making. The eE program evaluation is also described. The aim of the evaluation is to capture the contextual, procedural and relational aspects that assist and detract from the eE program aims; as well as the outcomes and impact from the specific eE projects.

          Methods

          The eE Program consists of a embedding a health economist in six health services and the provision of supported education in applied economic evaluation, provided via a community of practice and a university course. The embedded approach is grounded in co-production, embedded researchers and ‘slow science’. The sites, participants, and program design are described. The program evaluation includes qualitative data collection via surveys, semi-structured interviews, observations and field diaries. In order to share interim findings, data are collected and analysed prior, during and after implementation of the eE program, at each of the six health service sites. The surveys will be analysed by calculating frequencies and descriptive statistics. A thematic analysis will be conducted on interview, observation and filed diary data. The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) is utilised to assess the overall impact of the eE Program.

          Discussion

          This program and evaluation will contribute to knowledge about how best to build capacity and skills in economic evaluation amongst decision-makers working in local-level health services. It will examine the extent to which participants are able to improve their ability to utilise evidence to inform decisions, avoid waste and improve the value of care delivery.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06181-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from the Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature

            Background Formal evaluations of programmes are an important source of learning about the challenges faced in improving quality in healthcare and how they can be addressed. The authors aimed to integrate lessons from evaluations of the Health Foundation's improvement programmes with relevant literature. Methods The authors analysed evaluation reports relating to five Health Foundation improvement programmes using a form of ‘best fit’ synthesis, where a pre-existing framework was used for initial coding and then updated in response to the emerging analysis. A rapid narrative review of relevant literature was also undertaken. Results The authors identified ten key challenges: convincing people that there is a problem that is relevant to them; convincing them that the solution chosen is the right one; getting data collection and monitoring systems right; excess ambitions and ‘projectness’; organisational cultures, capacities and contexts; tribalism and lack of staff engagement; leadership; incentivising participation and ‘hard edges’; securing sustainability; and risk of unintended consequences. The authors identified a range of tactics that may be used to respond to these challenges. Discussion Securing improvement may be hard and slow and faces many challenges. Formal evaluations assist in recognising the nature of these challenges and help in addressing them.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does quality improvement improve quality?

              Although quality improvement (QI) is frequently advocated as a way of addressing the problems with healthcare, evidence of its effectiveness has remained very mixed. The reasons for this are varied but the growing literature highlights particular challenges. Fidelity in the application of QI methods is often variable. QI work is often pursued through time-limited, small-scale projects, led by professionals who may lack the expertise, power or resources to instigate the changes required. There is insufficient attention to rigorous evaluation of improvement and to sharing the lessons of successes and failures. Too many QI interventions are seen as ‘magic bullets’ that will produce improvement in any situation, regardless of context. Too much improvement work is undertaken in isolation at a local level, failing to pool resources and develop collective solutions, and introducing new hazards in the process. This article considers these challenges and proposes four key ways in which QI might itself be improved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                andrew.searles@hmri.org.au
                donella.piper@health.nsw.gov.au
                christine.jorm@health.nsw.gov.au
                penny.reeves@hmri.org.au
                maree.gleeson@newcastle.edu.au
                Jonathan.karnon@flinders.edu.au
                nicholas.goodwin@newcastle.edu.au
                kennydlawson@gmail.com
                rick.iedema@kcl.ac.uk
                jane.gray@health.nsw.gov.au
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                6 March 2021
                6 March 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 201
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, Australia
                [2 ]New South Wales Regional Health Partners, Newcastle, Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, School of Medicine and Public Health, , University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.1020.3, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7371, School of Rural Medicine, , University of New England, ; Armidale, Australia
                [5 ]GRID grid.413648.c, Hunter Medical Research Institute, ; New Lambton Heights, Australia
                [6 ]GRID grid.266842.c, ISNI 0000 0000 8831 109X, Faculty of Health and Medicine, , School of Biomedical Sciences & Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, ; Callaghan, Australia
                [7 ]GRID grid.1014.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0367 2697, College of Medicine and Public Health, , Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, ; Adelaide, Australia
                [8 ]Faculty of Health and Medicine, Central Coast Research Institute for Integrated Care, University of Newcastle & Central Coast Local Health District, Gosford, Australia
                [9 ]GRID grid.13097.3c, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, Centre for Team-Based Practice & Learning in Health Care, , King’s College London, ; London, UK
                [10 ]GRID grid.3006.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0438 2042, Partnerships, Innovation and Research, Hunter New England Local Health District, ; New Lambton, Australia
                Article
                6181
                10.1186/s12913-021-06181-1
                7936595
                d234dbc2-47a2-4672-93c7-2b59429f958a
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 20 October 2020
                : 16 February 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Medical Research Future Fund
                Award ID: MRF9100005
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Health & Social care
                health economics,economic evaluation,program evaluation,measuring impact,embedded researcher,health services research,value-based healthcare

                Comments

                Comment on this article