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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blythe, Robin, Naidoo, Shamesh, Abbott, Cameron, Bryant, Geoffrey, Dines, Amanda, Graves, Nicholas
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