Martin Douglas, Shulman Ken, Santiago-Sorrell Patricia, Singer Peter
University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Management and Evaluation, 88 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1L4, Canada.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003 Oct;8(4):197-201. doi: 10.1258/135581903322403254.
To describe and evaluate the priority-setting element of a hospital's strategic planning process.
Qualitative case study and evaluation against the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' of a strategic planning process at a large urban university-affiliated hospital.
The hospital's strategic planning process met the conditions of 'accountability for reasonableness' in large part. Specifically: the hospital based its decisions on reasons (both information and criteria) that the participants felt were relevant to the hospital; the number and type of participants were very extensive; the process, decisions and reasons were well communicated throughout the organization, using multiple communication vehicles; and the process included an ethical framework linked to an effort to evaluate and improve the process. However, there were opportunities to improve the process, particularly by giving participants more time to absorb the information relevant to priority-setting decisions, more time to take difficult decisions and some means to appeal or revise decisions.
A case study linked to an evaluation using 'accountability for reasonableness' can serve to improve priority-setting in the context of hospital strategic planning.
描述并评估一家医院战略规划过程中的优先事项设定要素。
采用定性案例研究,并对照一所大型城市大学附属医院战略规划过程的“合理问责”条件进行评估。
该医院的战略规划过程在很大程度上符合“合理问责”的条件。具体而言:医院的决策基于参与者认为与医院相关的理由(包括信息和标准);参与者的数量和类型非常广泛;通过多种沟通渠道,在整个组织中对过程、决策和理由进行了充分沟通;该过程包括一个与评估和改进过程的努力相关联的道德框架。然而,仍有改进该过程的机会,特别是要给予参与者更多时间来吸收与优先事项设定决策相关的信息,更多时间来做出艰难决策,以及提供一些申诉或修订决策的途径。
与基于“合理问责”的评估相关的案例研究有助于在医院战略规划背景下改进优先事项设定。