No abstract

The objective of this study was to identify key issues relevant to the development and implementation of a macro-level priority-setting framework (i.e., across broad service areas) within the Calgary Health Region. We used rigorous qualitative methods, including focus groups, meeting observations and interviews to identify views of decision-makers. Key issues relevant to macro-level priority-setting included: application of evidence, incentives, physician involvement, public involvement and application of values. Detailed insight into each of these issues was derived, including how best to handle related barriers to priority-setting in health organizations and important lessons for framework development. These lessons learned should provide insight for similar activity in other jurisdictions. 2 Reflection upon recent and current priority-setting practices Focus group and interviews with senior managers and clinicians to critically reflect on current and historical macro-level priority-setting practices and to identify key components for inclusion in a macro priority-setting model.

Twelve years ago (BMJ 1996;312:1553-4) the BMJ argued that health systems needed to be explicit about rationing and published articles describing different ways of rationing fairly. Here a clinician (doi:), two ethicists (doi:), and four health economists discuss how their ideas have developed—and been put into practice—since then

To date, relatively little work on priority setting has been carried out at a macro-level across major portfolios within integrated health care organizations. This paper describes a macro marginal analysis (MMA) process for setting priorities and allocating resources in health authorities, based on work carried out in a major urban health region in Alberta, Canada. MMA centers around an expert working group of managers and clinicians who are charged with identifying areas for resource re-allocation on an ongoing basis. Trade-offs between services are based on locally defined criteria and are informed by multiple inputs such as evidence from the literature and local expert opinion. The approach is put forth as a significant improvement on historical resource allocation patterns.

Many of today's healthcare facilities were constructed at least 50 years ago, and a growing number have outlived their useful lives. Despite renovations and renewals, they often fall short of providing an appropriate care setting. Clinicians and staff develop a mixture of compromises and workarounds simply to make things function. Evidence-based design principles are often absent from new healthcare facilities, perhaps because of lack of awareness of the principles or because implementing them may fall foul of short-term and shortsighted budgetary decisions. In planning a new healthcare facility in 2008, the executive team at Vancouver Island Health Authority decided to adopt the evidencebased design approach. They conducted site visits to newly constructed hospitals across North America and beyond, to determine best practices in terms of design and construction. These engagements resulted in the implementation of 102 evidence-based design principles and attributes in Victoria's Royal Jubilee hospital, a 500-bed Patient Care Centre. This $350M project was completed on time and on budget, showing that using evidence need not result in delays or higher costs. To date, the results of the evidence-based design are promising, with accolades coming from patients, staff and clinical partners, and a number of immediate and practical benefits for patients, families and care teams alike.