52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

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

          Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review

          Background Low-value clinical practices are common in healthcare, yet the optimal approach to de-adopting these practices is unknown. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on de-adoption, document current terminology and frameworks, map the literature to a proposed framework, identify gaps in our understanding of de-adoption, and identify opportunities for additional research. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, and CINAHL Plus were searched from 1 January 1990 to 5 March 2014. Additional citations were identified from bibliographies of included citations, relevant websites, the PubMed ‘related articles’ function, and contacting experts in implementation science. English-language citations that referred to de-adoption of clinical practices in adults with medical, surgical, or psychiatric illnesses were included. Citation selection and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Results From 26,608 citations, 109 were included in the final review. Most citations (65 %) were original research with the majority (59 %) published since 2010. There were 43 unique terms referring to the process of de-adoption—the most frequently cited was “disinvest” (39 % of citations). The focus of most citations was evaluating the outcomes of de-adoption (50 %), followed by identifying low-value practices (47 %), and/or facilitating de-adoption (40 %). The prevalence of low-value practices ranged from 16 % to 46 %, with two studies each identifying more than 100 low-value practices. Most articles cited randomized clinical trials (41 %) that demonstrate harm (73 %) and/or lack of efficacy (63 %) as the reason to de-adopt an existing clinical practice. Eleven citations described 13 frameworks to guide the de-adoption process, from which we developed a model for facilitating de-adoption. Active change interventions were associated with the greatest likelihood of de-adoption. Conclusions This review identified a large body of literature that describes current approaches and challenges to de-adoption of low-value clinical practices. Additional research is needed to determine an ideal strategy for identifying low-value practices, and facilitating and sustaining de-adoption. In the meantime, this study proposes a model that providers and decision-makers can use to guide efforts to de-adopt ineffective and harmful practices. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0488-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking

            Objectives Resource allocation is a challenging issue faced by health policy decisionmakers requiring careful consideration of many factors. Objectives of this study were to identify decision criteria and their frequency reported in the literature on healthcare decisionmaking. Method An extensive literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE to identify articles reporting healthcare decision criteria. Studies conducted with decisionmakers (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews), conceptual and review articles and articles describing multicriteria tools were included. Criteria were extracted, organized using a classification system derived from the EVIDEM framework and applying multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) principles, and the frequency of their occurrence was measured. Results Out of 3146 records identified, 2790 were excluded. Out of 356 articles assessed for eligibility, 40 studies included. Criteria were identified from studies performed in several regions of the world involving decisionmakers at micro, meso and macro levels of decision and from studies reporting on multicriteria tools. Large variations in terminology used to define criteria were observed and 360 different terms were identified. These were assigned to 58 criteria which were classified in 9 different categories including: health outcomes; types of benefit; disease impact; therapeutic context; economic impact; quality of evidence; implementation complexity; priority, fairness and ethics; and overall context. The most frequently mentioned criteria were: equity/fairness (32 times), efficacy/effectiveness (29), stakeholder interests and pressures (28), cost-effectiveness (23), strength of evidence (20), safety (19), mission and mandate of health system (19), organizational requirements and capacity (17), patient-reported outcomes (17) and need (16). Conclusion This study highlights the importance of considering both normative and feasibility criteria for fair allocation of resources and optimized decisionmaking for coverage and use of healthcare interventions. This analysis provides a foundation to develop a questionnaire for an international survey of decisionmakers on criteria and their relative importance. The ultimate objective is to develop sound multicriteria approaches to enlighten healthcare decisionmaking and priority-setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care.

              Unsustainable rising health care costs in the United States have made reducing costs while maintaining high-quality health care a national priority. The overuse of some screening and diagnostic tests is an important component of unnecessary health care costs. More judicious use of such tests will improve quality and reflect responsible awareness of costs. Efforts to control expenditures should focus not only on benefits, harms, and costs but on the value of diagnostic tests-meaning an assessment of whether a test provides health benefits that are worth its costs or harms. To begin to identify ways that practicing clinicians can contribute to the delivery of high-value, cost-conscious health care, the American College of Physicians convened a workgroup of physicians to identify, using a consensus-based process, common clinical situations in which screening and diagnostic tests are used in ways that do not reflect high-value care. The intent of this exercise is to promote thoughtful discussions about these tests and other health care interventions to promote high-value, cost-conscious care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                claire.harris@monash.edu
                kelly.allen@monash.edu
                richard.king@monashhealth.org
                wayne.p.ramsey@gmail.com
                cate.kelly@mh.org.au
                malar.thiagarajan@dhhs.vic.gov.au
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                5 May 2017
                5 May 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 328
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7857, GRID grid.1002.3, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, , Monash University, ; Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9295 3933, GRID grid.419789.a, , Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Monash Health, ; Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9295 3933, GRID grid.419789.a, , Medicine Program, Monash Health, ; Victoria, Australia
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9295 3933, GRID grid.419789.a, , Medical Services and Quality, Monash Health, ; Victoria, Australia
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0452 651X, GRID grid.429299.d, , Medical Services, Melbourne Health, ; Victoria, Australia
                [6 ]GRID grid.453680.c, , Ageing and Aged Care Branch, Department of Health and Human Services, ; Victoria, Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5367-8144
                Article
                2211
                10.1186/s12913-017-2211-6
                5420107
                28476159
                fec5b044-3977-46af-bfbf-b5f1925371dc
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

                History
                : 11 March 2016
                : 31 March 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003747, Department of Health, State Government of Victoria;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Health & Social care
                disinvestment,decommission,de-adopt,de-list,de-implement,health clinical practice,tcp,resource allocation,decision-making,implementation

                Comments

                Comment on this article