Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation

被引:43
作者
Martin, DK
Hollenberg, D
MacRae, S
Madden, S
Singer, P
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Joint Ctr Bioeth, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON M5G 1L4, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Hlth Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
priority setting; hospital drug formulary; case study; accountability for reasonableness;
D O I
10.1016/S0168-8510(03)00063-0
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Dramatically rising costs for new drugs are posing major challenges for hospital budgets. In response to these pressures, hospitals must set priorities for which drugs they will list on their formularies. While there have been studies relevant to decision making in hospitals regarding drugs, none have described how priority setting for drugs in hospitals is done and evaluated it against a framework of how it should be done. In this paper we describe the process of priority setting for new drugs in a hospital formulary and evaluate it using a leading conceptual framework for healthcare priority setting-Daniels and Sabin's 'accountability for reasonableness'. The findings from this study provide an evidence base for developing strategies to improve this hospital's priority setting regarding its drug formulary. The process we utilized here, describing using case study methods and evaluating using 'accountability for reasonableness', is a generalizable process for improving the fairness of priority setting in hospital drug formularies. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:295 / 303
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[11]  
Ham C, 2001, J Health Serv Res Policy, V6, P163, DOI 10.1258/1355819011927422
[12]  
HAM C, 2000, CONTESTED DECISIONS
[13]  
Lincoln Y, 1985, Newberry Park
[14]   THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT BY HOSPITALS, HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS, AND 3RD-PARTY PAYERS IN THE UNITED-STATES [J].
LUCE, BR ;
BROWN, RE .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 1995, 11 (01) :79-92
[15]   The art and science of clinical knowledge: evidence beyond measures and numbers [J].
Malterud, K .
LANCET, 2001, 358 (9279) :397-400
[16]   Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers [J].
Martin, DK ;
Giacomini, M ;
Singer, PA .
HEALTH POLICY, 2002, 61 (03) :279-290
[17]   Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: a qualitative case study [J].
Martin, DK ;
Pater, JL ;
Singer, PA .
LANCET, 2001, 358 (9294) :1676-1681
[18]  
Martin Douglas K, 2002, J Health Serv Res Policy, V7, P222, DOI 10.1258/135581902320432750
[19]   Qualitative research in health care - Assessing quality in qualitative research [J].
Mays, N ;
Pope, C .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2000, 320 (7226) :50-52
[20]  
Mucklow JC, 2000, J ROY COLL PHYS LOND, V34, P124