Cargando…

Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust

BACKGROUND: In the English NHS, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are required to commission health services, to maximise the well-being of the population, subject to the available budget. There are numerous techniques employed to make decisions, some more rational and transparent than others. A weighted b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Edward CF, Rees, John, Fordham, Richard J
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16503989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-4-3
_version_ 1782126949618941952
author Wilson, Edward CF
Rees, John
Fordham, Richard J
author_facet Wilson, Edward CF
Rees, John
Fordham, Richard J
author_sort Wilson, Edward CF
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the English NHS, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are required to commission health services, to maximise the well-being of the population, subject to the available budget. There are numerous techniques employed to make decisions, some more rational and transparent than others. A weighted benefit score can be used to rank options but this does not take into account value for money from investments. METHODS: We developed a weighted benefit score framework for use in an English PCT which ranked options in order of 'cost-value' or 'cost per point of benefit'. Our method differs from existing techniques by explicitly combining cost and a composite weighted benefit score into the cost-value ratio. RESULTS: The technique proved readily workable, and was able to accommodate a wide variety of data and competing criteria. Participants felt able to assign scores to proposed services, and generate a ranked list, which provides a solid starting point for the PCT Board to discuss and make funding decisions. Limitations included potential for criteria to be neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive and the lack of an interval property in the benefit score limiting the usefulness of a cost-value ratio. CONCLUSION: A technical approach to decision making is insufficient for making prioritisation decisions, however our technique provides a very valuable, structured and informed starting point for PCT decision making.
format Text
id pubmed-1395334
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-13953342006-03-09 Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust Wilson, Edward CF Rees, John Fordham, Richard J Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: In the English NHS, Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are required to commission health services, to maximise the well-being of the population, subject to the available budget. There are numerous techniques employed to make decisions, some more rational and transparent than others. A weighted benefit score can be used to rank options but this does not take into account value for money from investments. METHODS: We developed a weighted benefit score framework for use in an English PCT which ranked options in order of 'cost-value' or 'cost per point of benefit'. Our method differs from existing techniques by explicitly combining cost and a composite weighted benefit score into the cost-value ratio. RESULTS: The technique proved readily workable, and was able to accommodate a wide variety of data and competing criteria. Participants felt able to assign scores to proposed services, and generate a ranked list, which provides a solid starting point for the PCT Board to discuss and make funding decisions. Limitations included potential for criteria to be neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive and the lack of an interval property in the benefit score limiting the usefulness of a cost-value ratio. CONCLUSION: A technical approach to decision making is insufficient for making prioritisation decisions, however our technique provides a very valuable, structured and informed starting point for PCT decision making. BioMed Central 2006-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC1395334/ /pubmed/16503989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-4-3 Text en Copyright © 2006 Wilson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Wilson, Edward CF
Rees, John
Fordham, Richard J
Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title_full Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title_fullStr Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title_full_unstemmed Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title_short Developing a prioritisation framework in an English Primary Care Trust
title_sort developing a prioritisation framework in an english primary care trust
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395334/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16503989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-4-3
work_keys_str_mv AT wilsonedwardcf developingaprioritisationframeworkinanenglishprimarycaretrust
AT reesjohn developingaprioritisationframeworkinanenglishprimarycaretrust
AT fordhamrichardj developingaprioritisationframeworkinanenglishprimarycaretrust