Correction: Application of a Mixed Methods Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework in Integrated Health Care.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5334/ijic.5997.].

Application of a Mixed Methods Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Framework in Integrated Health Care.

Background: Evaluating integrated care programs is complex. Integration benefits may not become apparent within short evaluation timeframes, and many programs provide a wide variety of health and non-health benefits. To address these challenges, we illustrate a mixed methods approach for evaluating multiple integrated care programs using multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: We adapted a decision support tool used by local decision makers to compare data extracted from 17 different integrated care evaluations. Criteria included impact on health services capacity, patient outcomes, integration of care, workforce development and implementation risk, weighted based on stakeholder preferences. Program benefits were compared to their implementation costs, and assessed using cost-effectiveness methods. Sensitivity analysis examined the impact of different criteria weights. Results and discussion: This method captured a diverse range of benefits provided by integrated care programs and provided an accessible heuristic to compare many projects simultaneously. However, this approach may not be sensitive to the appropriateness of each criterion to the health system, the magnitude of difference in individual criteria, equity considerations or socio-political factors. Internal and external validation, especially for subjective criteria such as implementation risk, are needed. Conclusions: This work offers a feasible, flexible and pragmatic approach for evaluating integrated care programs.

Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators.

INTRODUCTION: Health administration is complex and serves many masters. Value, quality, infrastructure and reimbursement are just a sample of the competing interests influencing executive decision-making. This creates a need for decision processes that are rational and holistic. METHODS: We created a multicriteria decision analysis tool to evaluate six fields of healthcare provision: return on investment, capacity, outcomes, safety, training and risk. The tool was designed for prospective use, at the beginning of each funding round for competing projects. Administrators were asked to rank their criteria in order of preference. Each field was assigned a representative weight determined from the rankings. Project data were then entered into the tool for each of the six fields. The score for each field was scaled as a proportion of the highest scoring project, then weighted by preference. We then plotted findings on a cost-effectiveness plane. The project was piloted and developed over successive uses by the hospital's executive board. RESULTS: Twelve projects competing for funding at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital were scored by the tool. It created a priority ranking for each initiative based on the weights assigned to each field by the executive board. Projects were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane with score as the x-axis and cost of implementation as the y-axis. Projects to the bottom right were considered dominant over projects above and to the left, indicating that they provided greater benefit at a lower cost. Projects below the x-axis were cost-saving and recommended provided they did not harm patients. All remaining projects above the x-axis were then recommended in order of lowest to highest cost-per-point scored. CONCLUSION: This tool provides a transparent, objective method of decision analysis using accessible software. It would serve health services delivery organisations that seek to achieve value in healthcare.

Review of methods and study designs of evaluations related to clinical pathways.

Objective The HealthPathways program is an online information portal that helps clinicians provide consistent and integrated patient care within a local health system through localised pathways for diagnosis, treatment and management of various health conditions. These pathways are consistent with the definition of clinical pathways. Evaluations of HealthPathways programs have thus far focused primarily on website utilisation and clinical users' experience and satisfaction, with limited evidence on changes to patient outcomes. This lack motivated a literature review of the effects of clinical pathways on patient and economic outcomes to inform a subsequent HealthPathways evaluation. Methods A systematic review was performed to summarise the analytical methods, study designs and results of studies evaluating clinical pathways with an economic outcome component published between 1 January 2000 and 31 August 2017 in four academic literature databases. Results Fifty-five relevant articles were identified for inclusion in this review. The practical pre-post study design with retrospective baseline data extraction and prospective intervention data collection was most commonly used in the evaluations identified. Straightforward statistical methods for comparing outcomes, such as the t-test or χ2 test, were frequently used. Only four of the 55 articles performed a cost-effectiveness analysis. Clinical pathways were generally associated with improved patient outcomes and positive economic outcomes in hospital settings. Conclusions Clinical pathways evaluations commonly use pragmatic study designs, straightforward statistical tests and cost-consequence analyses. More HealthPathways program evaluations focused on patient and economic outcomes, clinical pathway evaluations in a primary care setting and cost-effectiveness analyses of clinical pathways are needed. What is known about the topic? HealthPathways is a web-based program that originated from Canterbury, New Zealand, and has seen uptake elsewhere in New Zealand, Australia and the UK. The HealthPathways program aims to assist the provision of consistent and integrated health services through dedicated, localised pathways for various health conditions specific to the health region. Evaluations of HealthPathways program focused on patient and economic outcomes have been limited. What does this paper add? This review synthesises the academic literature of clinical pathways evaluations in order to inform a subsequent HealthPathways evaluation. The focus of the synthesis was on the analytical methods and study designs used in the previous evaluations. The previous clinical pathway evaluations have been pragmatic in nature with relatively straightforward study designs and analysis. What are the implications for practitioners? There is a need for more economic and patient outcome evaluations for HealthPathways programs. More sophisticated statistical analyses and economic evaluations could add value to these evaluations, where appropriate and taking into consideration the data limitations.