Open Collections

Development and implementation of a priority setting and resource allocation evaluation tool for achieving high performance

University of British Columbia

Objective: Canadian healthcare decision makers are facing greater pressure in setting priorities and allocating resources. However, recent studies suggest that only about 50% of healthcare organizations follow a formal priority setting process, and that even fewer are evaluating their processes to achieve ongoing improvement. This research developed an evaluation tool to help organizations identify the strengths and weaknesses of their process, and performed a meta-evaluation of the tool itself to inform future refinements. Methods: A high performance framework for priority setting and resource allocation formed the foundation for this research. The framework was operationalized into an evaluation tool that took the form of a semi-structured interview. The tool was then implemented in test organization. Data from this application were analyzed using template and content analysis, and organizational strengths and weaknesses were identified. At the end of each evaluation interview, debriefs with participants were used to inform refinements for future applications of the tool. Results: The evaluation tool was successfully developed from the high performance framework, and was implemented through interviews with 27 members of the test organization. Strengths of the organization’s process included involvement of a strong leadership team and use of a proposal assessment tool. Weaknesses included lack of training, and the presence of proposals that circumvented the formal process. Refinements to the tool involved formatting of interview questions as well as the addition of a new element and a new sub-element. Conclusion: This research represents the first attempt at creating an evaluation tool using the high performance framework, and is novel in its application at a macro level within the test healthcare organization. Based on feedback from participants and the ability of the tool to capture relevant strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s process, further application is warranted. Future implementation will also serve to further refine the tool itself.

Text

2013-10-25

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/45396

Health Care and Epidemiology

University of British Columbia

UBCV

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/