Priority Setting in Surgery: Improve theProcess and Share the Learning
- 6 June 2003
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Wiley in World Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 27 (8) , 962-966
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-003-7100-y
Abstract
Surgeons and surgical programs encounter priority-setting challenges every day, such as in regard to purchasing new technologies or managing waiting lists for elective surgery. The purpose of this paper was to explore priority setting in surgery. Traditionally in surgery, priority-setting decisions for new technologies have been based on evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and decisions about managing waiting lists for elective surgery have been based on urgency rating scores. The fairness of priority-setting processes in surgical programs should be enhanced to permit all relevant information and values to be considered. The quality of these decisions can be improved by using an approach that captures and shares lessons from each priority-setting experience. The approach we propose in this paper—describe, evaluate, and improve using a leading conceptual framework for priority setting, called “accountability for reasonableness”—can be used by any surgical program to improve its priority setting, share lessons with others, and develop an evidence base for how these important health policy decisions should be made.Keywords
Funding Information
- Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- University of Toronto
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ontario??s Formulary CommitteePharmacoEconomics, 2003
- Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case studyThe Lancet, 2001
- The second phase of priority setting Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care Fairness as a problem of love and the heart: a clinician's perspective on priority setting Israel's basic basket of health services: the importance of being explicitly implicitBMJ, 1998
- Managed delay for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: The experience at one Canadian centerJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1996
- Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Benefit language: criteria that will improve quality while reducing costsJAMA, 1996
- Waiting for coronary artery bypass surgery: population-based study of 8517 consecutive patients in Ontario, CanadaThe Lancet, 1995
- Medicine, practice and guidelines: The uneasy juncture of science and artJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Oregon's methods. Did cost-effectiveness analysis fail?JAMA, 1991
- Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision AnalysisMedical Decision Making, 1990
- Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation proceduresThe Lancet, 1990