RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This is the eighth 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 disinvestment within a large Australian health service. One of the aims was to explore methods to deliver existing high quality synthesised evidence directly to decision-makers to drive decision-making proactively. An Evidence Dissemination Service (EDS) was proposed. While this was conceived as a method to identify disinvestment opportunities, it became clear that it could also be a way to review all practices for consistency with current evidence. This paper reports the development, implementation and evaluation of two models of an in-house EDS. METHODS: Frameworks for development of complex interventions, implementation of evidence-based change, and evaluation and explication of processes and outcomes were adapted and/or applied. Mixed methods including a literature review, surveys, interviews, workshops, audits, document analysis and action research were used to capture barriers, enablers and local needs; identify effective strategies; develop and refine proposals; ascertain feedback and measure outcomes. RESULTS: Methods to identify, capture, classify, store, repackage, disseminate and facilitate use of synthesised research evidence were investigated. In Model 1, emails containing links to multiple publications were sent to all self-selected participants who were asked to determine whether they were the relevant decision-maker for any of the topics presented, whether change was required, and to take the relevant action. This voluntary framework did not achieve the aim of ensuring practice was consistent with current evidence. In Model 2, the need for change was established prior to dissemination, then a summary of the evidence was sent to the decision-maker responsible for practice in the relevant area who was required to take appropriate action and report the outcome. This mandatory governance framework was successful. The factors influencing decisions, processes and outcomes were identified. CONCLUSION: An in-house EDS holds promise as a method of identifying disinvestment opportunities and/or reviewing local practice for consistency with current evidence. The resource-intensive nature of delivery of the EDS is a potential barrier. The findings from this study will inform further exploration.
Asunto(s)
Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Administración de los Servicios de Salud , Australia , Toma de Decisiones en la Organización , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/métodos , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Modelos OrganizacionalesRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Atención a la Salud/normas , Asignación de Recursos/normas , Comunicación , Participación de la Comunidad/estadística & datos numéricos , Toma de Decisiones , Toma de Decisiones en la Organización , Atención a la Salud/economía , Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Inversiones en Salud , Modelos Económicos , Prioridad del Paciente/economía , Prioridad del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Asignación de Recursos/economía , VictoriaRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Administración de los Servicios de Salud , Asignación de Recursos/organización & administración , Australia , Tecnología Biomédica , Toma de Decisiones , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , LiderazgoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Recursos en Salud/organización & administración , Administración de los Servicios de Salud , Asignación de Recursos/métodos , Costos y Análisis de Costo , Toma de Decisiones en la Organización , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud , Humanos , Estudios de Casos Organizacionales , Proyectos PilotoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This is the fifth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. This paper synthesises the findings from Phase One of the SHARE Program and presents a model to be implemented and evaluated in Phase Two. Monash Health, a large healthcare network in Melbourne Australia, sought to establish an organisation-wide systematic evidence-based program for disinvestment. In the absence of guidance from the literature, the Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, an in-house 'Evidence Based Practice Support Unit', was asked to explore concepts and practices related to disinvestment, consider the implications for a local health service and identify potential settings and methods for decision-making. METHODS: Mixed methods were used to capture the relevant information. These included literature reviews; online questionnaire, interviews and structured workshops with a range of stakeholders; and consultation with experts in disinvestment, health economics and health program evaluation. Using the principles of evidence-based change, the project team worked with health service staff, consumers and external experts to synthesise the findings from published literature and local research and develop proposals, frameworks and plans. RESULTS: Multiple influencing factors were extracted from these findings. The implications were both positive and negative and addressed aspects of the internal and external environments, human factors, empirical decision-making, and practical applications. These factors were considered in establishment of the new program; decisions reached through consultation with stakeholders were used to define four program components, their aims and objectives, relationships between components, principles that underpin the program, implementation and evaluation plans, and preconditions for success and sustainability. The components were Systems and processes, Disinvestment projects, Support services, and Program evaluation and research. A model for a systematic approach to evidence-based resource allocation in a local health service was developed. CONCLUSION: A robust evidence-based investigation of the research literature and local knowledge with a range of stakeholders resulted in rich information with strong consistent messages. At the completion of Phase One, synthesis of the findings enabled development of frameworks and plans and all preconditions for exploration of the four main aims in Phase Two were met.
Asunto(s)
Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/métodos , Administración de los Servicios de Salud , Asignación de Recursos/métodos , Australia , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de SaludRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/organización & administración , Administración de los Servicios de Salud , Asignación de Recursos/organización & administración , Australia , Creación de Capacidad , Toma de Decisiones , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/métodos , Investigación sobre Servicios de Salud , HumanosRESUMEN
Previous results from our laboratory indicated that a majority of mares with high body condition scores (BCS) displayed estrous cycles or had considerable follicular activity during the winter. Among these high BCS mares, about 35% of them exhibited a persistent hyperleptinemia and hyperinsulinemia. The current experiment was designed to compare the reproductive characteristics of high BCS mares with hyperleptinemia to those with normal (low) plasma concentrations of leptin during the winter and the first estrous cycle (or the first full cycle encountered for those already cycling). Light horse mares with high BCS (6-8.5) were assigned to groups based on leptin concentrations (8/group): low (<5 ng/mL) and high (>10 ng/mL). Beginning 7 January, mares were assessed every 3d for follicular activity and then daily once a follicle >25 mm was detected. Mares were subsequently monitored through their first and second ovulations. Leptin concentrations remained higher (P<0.001) in mares in the high leptin group over the duration of the experiment. Also, high leptin mares had greater (P<0.0001) insulin response to glucose infusion and a faster (P<0.05) rate of glucose clearance. One mare with high leptin and three mares with low leptin had progesterone concentrations indicative of the presence of a corpus luteum at the onset of the experiment. Plasma concentrations of LH, FSH, and progesterone did not differ between groups (P>0.1) during the first estrous cycle occurring after 7 January. Date of first ovulation after 7 January and interovulatory interval were similar (P>0.1) for the two groups, as were estimates of follicular numbers on the ovaries (small, medium, and large; P>0.1). It is concluded that the perturbations in leptin and insulin secretion observed in some high BCS mares are not associated with alterations in ovarian activity or the estrous cycle during winter and into the period of vernal transition.