Fit for purpose? Introducing a rational priority setting approach into a community care setting.

Purpose - Program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers with allocating resources. Previous PBMA work establishes its efficacy and indicates that contextual factors complicate priority setting, which can hamper PBMA effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to gain qualitative insight into PBMA effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach - A Canadian case study of PBMA implementation. Data consist of decision-maker interviews pre (n=20), post year-1 (n=12) and post year-2 (n=9) of PBMA to examine perceptions of baseline priority setting practice vis-à-vis desired practice, and perceptions of PBMA usability and acceptability. Findings - Fit emerged as a key theme in determining PBMA effectiveness. Fit herein refers to being of suitable quality and form to meet the intended purposes and needs of the end-users, and includes desirability, acceptability, and usability dimensions. Results confirm decision-maker desire for rational approaches like PBMA. However, most participants indicated that the timing of the exercise and the form in which PBMA was applied were not well-suited for this case study. Participant acceptance of and buy-in to PBMA changed during the study: a leadership change, limited organizational commitment, and concerns with organizational capacity were key barriers to PBMA adoption and thereby effectiveness. Practical implications - These findings suggest that a potential way-forward includes adding a contextual readiness/capacity assessment stage to PBMA, recognizing organizational complexity, and considering incremental adoption of PBMA's approach. Originality/value - These insights help us to better understand and work with priority setting conditions to advance evidence-informed decision making.

Determining and broadening the definition of impact from implementing a rational priority setting approach in a healthcare organization.

Techniques to manage scarce healthcare resources continue to evolve in response to changing, growing and competing demands. Yet there is no standard definition in the priority setting literature of what might constitute the desired impact or success of resource management activities. In this 2006-09 study, using action research methodology, we determined the impact of implementing a formal priority setting model, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA), in a Canadian health authority. Qualitative data were collected through post year-1 (n = 12) and year-2 (n = 9) participant interviews, meeting observation and document review. Interviews were analyzed using a constant comparison technique to identify major themes. Impact can be defined as effects at three levels: system, group, and individual. System-level impact can be seen in the actual selection of priorities and resource re-allocation. In this case, participants prioritized a list of $760,000 worth of investment proposals and $38,000 of disinvestment proposals; however, there was no clear evidence as to whether financial resources were reallocated as a result. Group and individual impacts, less frequently reported in the literature, included changes in priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. PBMA impacts at these three levels were found to be interrelated. This work argues in favor of attempts to expand the definition of priority setting success by including both desired system-level outcomes like resource re-allocation and individual or group level impacts like changes to priority setting knowledge, attitudes and practice. These latter impacts are worth pursuing as they appear to be intrinsic to successful system-wide priority setting. A broader definition of PBMA impact may also suggest conceptualizing PBMA as both a priority setting approach and as a tool to develop individual and group priority setting knowledge and practice. These results should be of interest to researchers and decision makers using or considering a formal priority setting approach to manage scarce healthcare resources.

Changing priority setting practice: the role of implementation in practice change.

BACKGROUND: Programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) is a priority setting approach that assists decision makers in choosing among resource demands. This paper describes and evaluates the process of implementing PBMA in a Canadian regional health authority, and draws out key lessons learned from this experience. METHODS: Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured participant interviews (twelve post year-1; nine post year-2), meeting attendance, and document review. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparison technique. Other data were analyzed to evaluate PBMA implementation. RESULTS: Desire for more clarity and for PBMA adaptations emerged as overarching themes. Participants desired greater clarity of their roles and how PBMA should be used to achieve PBMA's potential benefits. They argued that each PBMA stage should be useful independent of the others so that implementation could be adapted. To help improve clarity and ensure that resources were available to support PBMA, participants requested an organizational readiness and capacity assessment. CONCLUSION: We suggest tactics by which PBMA may be more closely aligned with real-world priority setting practice. Our results also contribute to the literature on PBMA use in various healthcare settings. Highlighting implementation issues and potential responses to these should be of interest to decision makers implementing PBMA and other evidence-informed practices.