Cargando…

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

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 an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kieslich, Katharina, Littlejohns, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26163034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007908
_version_ 1782380834587672576
author Kieslich, Katharina
Littlejohns, Peter
author_facet Kieslich, Katharina
Littlejohns, Peter
author_sort Kieslich, Katharina
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4499742
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44997422015-07-15 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 Kieslich, Katharina Littlejohns, Peter BMJ Open Health Policy 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4499742/ /pubmed/26163034 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007908 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Policy
Kieslich, Katharina
Littlejohns, Peter
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Health Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4499742/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26163034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007908
work_keys_str_mv AT kieslichkatharina doesaccountabilityforreasonablenessworkaprotocolforamixedmethodsstudyusinganaudittooltoevaluatethedecisionmakingofclinicalcommissioninggroupsinengland
AT littlejohnspeter doesaccountabilityforreasonablenessworkaprotocolforamixedmethodsstudyusinganaudittooltoevaluatethedecisionmakingofclinicalcommissioninggroupsinengland