Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England
نویسندگان
چکیده
INTRODUCTION Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are tasked with making difficult decisions on which healthcare services to provide against the background of limited budgets. The question is how to ensure that these decisions are fair and legitimate. Accounts of what constitutes fair and legitimate priority setting in healthcare include Daniels' and Sabin's accountability for reasonableness (A4R) and Clark's and Weale's framework for the identification of social values. This study combines these accounts and asks whether the decisions of those CCGs that adhere to elements of such accounts are perceived as fairer and more legitimate by key stakeholders. The study addresses the empirical gap arising from a lack of research on whether frameworks such as A4R hold what they promise. It aims to understand the criteria that feature in CCG decision-making. Finally, it examines the usefulness of a decision-making audit tool (DMAT) in identifying the process and content criteria that CCGs apply when making decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The adherence of a sample of CCGs to criteria emerging from theories of fair priority setting will be examined using the DMAT developed by PL. The results will be triangulated with data from semistructured interviews with key stakeholders in the CCG sample to ascertain whether there is a correlation between those CCGs that performed well in the DMAT exercise and those whose decisions are perceived positively by interviewees. Descriptive statistical methods will be used to analyse the DMAT data. A combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods will be used to analyse the interview transcripts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Full ethics approval was received by the King's College London Biomedical Sciences, Dentistry, Medicine and Natural and Mathematical Sciences Research Ethics Subcommittee. The results of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer review journals.
منابع مشابه
Moving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness – A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study
Background The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decisio...
متن کاملClinical decision making in Iranian nurses: systematic review
Introduction: Clinical decision making is one of the most important processes which nurses always use to care for patients. Appropriate decisions help to improve the quality of care, reduce the duration of illness and disability, reduce costs and make optimal use of resources. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to review studies conducted in the field of clinical decision making of Ira...
متن کاملAn Introduction to Policy Delphi; A tool for discovering the opposing views on health policy issues
Objective: In this review, we investigated various aspects of Policy Delphi technique to make decision-makers more aware of this pertinent method so that they can use it in their policy decisions in their organizations. Information sources and selected methods for study: This study was conducted using a review method and by searching the related literature in databases such as PubMed, Scopus a...
متن کاملThe Impact of Psychological Empowerment on Premature Sign-Off Procedures and Underreporting Time of Audit
Audit quality is a fundamental element that reflects the demand for audit services. Also, high audit quality improves the credibility and continuity of profession and audit firms. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Premature Sign-Off Procedures and Underreporting Time of Audit as reducing the quality of audit and, ultimately, the long-term interests of audit firms. In this rega...
متن کاملEffect of Individual Counseling on the Participation Rate of Pregnant Mothers in Decision Making on the Treatment Process: Clinical Trial
Aim: Due to the high Sensitivity of pregnancy and the vulnerability of mothers during this period, their participation in clinical decisions is very important. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of individual counseling on the participation of pregnant women in decision making on the treatment process. Methods & Materials: This clinical trial study was carried out on 190 pre...
متن کامل