Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502058/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31023757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025752 |
_version_ | 1783416196523098112 |
---|---|
author | Blythe, Robin Naidoo, Shamesh Abbott, Cameron Bryant, Geoffrey Dines, Amanda Graves, Nicholas |
author_facet | Blythe, Robin Naidoo, Shamesh Abbott, Cameron Bryant, Geoffrey Dines, Amanda Graves, Nicholas |
author_sort | Blythe, Robin |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6502058 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65020582019-05-21 Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators Blythe, Robin Naidoo, Shamesh Abbott, Cameron Bryant, Geoffrey Dines, Amanda Graves, Nicholas BMJ Open Health Services Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6502058/ /pubmed/31023757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025752 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Blythe, Robin Naidoo, Shamesh Abbott, Cameron Bryant, Geoffrey Dines, Amanda Graves, Nicholas Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title | Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title_full | Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title_fullStr | Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title_full_unstemmed | Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title_short | Development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) tool for health services administrators |
title_sort | development and pilot of a multicriteria decision analysis (mcda) tool for health services administrators |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502058/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31023757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025752 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blytherobin developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators AT naidooshamesh developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators AT abbottcameron developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators AT bryantgeoffrey developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators AT dinesamanda developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators AT gravesnicholas developmentandpilotofamulticriteriadecisionanalysismcdatoolforhealthservicesadministrators |