Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Centre for Clinical Epidemiology & Evaluation, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

2 School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

3 Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

4 Strategy and Organizational Performance, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada

5 Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Abstract

Background
In this article, we analyze one case instance of how proposals for change to the priority setting and resource allocation (PSRA) processes at a Canadian healthcare institution reached the decision agenda of the organization’s senior leadership. We adopt key concepts from an established policy studies framework – Kingdon’s multiple streams theory – to inform our analysis.
 
Methods
Twenty-six individual interviews were conducted at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax, NS, Canada. Participants were asked to reflect upon the reasons leading up to the implementation of a formal priority setting process – Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) – in the 2012/2013 fiscal year. Responses were analyzed qualitatively using Kingdon’s model as a template.
 
Results
The introduction of PBMA can be understood as the opening of a policy window. A problem stream – defined as lack of broad engagement and information sharing across service lines in past practice – converged with a known policy solution, PBMA, which addressed the identified problems and was perceived as easy to use and with an evidence-base from past applications across Canada and elsewhere. Conditions in the political realm allowed for this intervention to proceed, but also constrained its potential outcomes.
 
Conclusion
Understanding in a theoretically-informed way how change occurs in healthcare management practices can provide useful lessons to researchers and decision-makers whose aim is to help health systems achieve the most effective use of available financial resources.

Highlights

Commentary Published on this Paper

  • Priority Setting Meets Multiple Streams: A Match to Be Further Examined?; Comment on “Introducing New Priority Setting and Resource Allocation Processes in a Canadian Healthcare Organization: A Case Study Analysis Informed by Multiple Streams Theory”

          Abstract | PDF

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Barasa E, Molyneux WS, English M, Cleary S. Setting healthcare priorities in hospitals: a review of empirical studies. Health Policy Plan. 2015;30(3):386-396.  doi:10.1093/heapol/czu010
  2. Smith N, Mitton C, Davidson A, Williams I. A politics of priority setting: ideas, interests and institutions in healthcare resource allocation. Public Policy Adm. 2014;29(4):331-347. doi:10.1177/0952076714529141
  3. Sabatier P. The need for better theories. In: Sabatier PA, ed. Theories of the Policy Process . 2nd ed. Westview: Boulder, CO; 2007:3-17.
  4. Breton E, De Leeuw E. Theories of the policy process in health promotion research: a review. Health Promot Int. 2010;26(1):82-90. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq051
  5. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc; 1995.
  6. Nowlin MC. Theories of the policy process: state of the research and emerging trends. Policy Stud J. 2011;39(S1):41-60. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00389_4.x
  7. Ridde V. Policy implementation in an African state: an extension of Kingdon’s multiple-streams approach. Public Adm. 2009;87(4):938-954. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01792.x
  8. Gulbrandsson K, Fossum B. An explanation of the theoretical concepts policy windows and policy entrepreneurs at the Swedish public health arena. Health Promot Int. 2009;24(4):434-444. doi:10.1093/heapro/dap033
  9. Vos B, Lagasse R, Levesque A. Putting newborn hearing screening on the political agenda in Belgium: local initiatives toward a community programme - a qualitative study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:32. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-32
  10. Blackman VS. Putting policy theory to work: tobacco control in California. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2005;6(2):148-155. doi:10.1177/1527154405276289
  11. Craig RL, Felix HC, Walker JF, Phillips MM. Public health professionals as policy entrepreneurs: Arkansas’s childhood obesity policy experience. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2047-2052. doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.183939
  12. Gladwin C, Church J, Plotnikoff R. Public policy processes and getting physical activity into Alberta’s urban schools. Can J Public Health. 2008;99(4):32-38.
  13. Henstra D. Explaining local policy choices: a multiple streams analysis of municipal emergency management. Can Public Adm. 2010;53(2):241-258. doi:10.1111/j.1754-7121.2010.00128.x
  14. Rowlands IH. The development of renewable electricity policy in the province of Ontario: the influence of ideas and timing. Rev Policy Res. 2007;24(3):185-207. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00277.x
  15. Mannheimer LN, Gulis G, Lehto J, Ostlin P. Introducing health impact assessment: an analysis of political and administrative intersectoral working methods. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17(5):526-531. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckl267
  16. Tenbensel T. Complexity theory and health policy. In: Geyer R, Cairney P, eds. Handbook on Complexity and Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2015.
  17. Peacock S, Mitton C, Ruta D, Donaldson C, Bate A, Hedden L. Priority setting in healthcare: towards guidelines for the program budgeting and marginal analysis framework. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2010;10(5):539-552. doi:10.1586/erp.10.66
  18. Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.
  19. King N. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell C, Symon G, eds. Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research,. London: Sage; 2004.
  20. Groger L, Mayberry PS, Straker JK. What we didn’t learn because of who would not talk to us. Qual Health Res. 1999;9(6):829-835. doi:10.1177/104973299129122180
  21. Gibson JL, Martin DK, Singer PA. Priority setting in hospitals: fairness, inclusiveness, and the problem of institutional power differences. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:2355-2362. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.037
  22. Gibson JL, Mitton C, DuBois-Wing G. Priority setting in Ontario’s LHINs: ethics and economics in action. Healthcare Q. 2011;4(4):35-43. doi:10.12927/hcq.2011.22649
  23. Urquhart B, Mitton C, Peacock S. Introducing priority setting and resource allocation in home and community care programs. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(suppl 1):41-45. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007064
  24. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis. Health Policy. 2003;64:335-348. doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00198-7
  25. Mitton C, Patten S, Donaldson C. Listening to the decision makers: sustainability of PBMA in Alberta. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(3):143-151. doi:10.2165/00148365-200403030-00005
  26. Goodwin E, Frew EJ. Using programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) to set priorities: reflections from a qualitative assessment in an English Primary Care Trust. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 98:162-168. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.020
  27. Harrison A, Mitton C. Engaging physicians in priority setting: the Alberta experience. Healthc Manage Forum. 2004;17(4):21-27.
  28. Ruta D, Mitton C, Bate A, Donaldson C. Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis: bridging the divide between doctors and managers. BMJ. 2005;330(7506):1501-1503. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1501
  29. Lomas J, Brown A. Research and advice giving: a functional view of evidence-informed policy advice in a Canadian ministry of health. Milbank Q. 2009;87:903-926.
  30. Cornelissen E, Mitton C, Davidson A, et al. Changing priority setting practice: the role of implementation in practice change. Health Policy. 2014;117(2):266-274. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.010
  31. Jones MD, Peterson HL, Pierce JJ, et al. A river runs through it: a multiple streams meta-review. Policy Stud J. 2015. doi:10.1111/psj.12115
  32. Burck C. Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: the use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. J Fam Ther. 2005;27:237-262. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00314.x
  33. March JG, Simon HA. Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1958.
  34. Mitton C, Levy A, Gorsky D, MacNeil C, Dionne F, Marrie T. Allocating limited resources in a time of fiscal constraints: a priority setting case study from Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):939-945. doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318294fb7e
  35. Smith N, Mitton C, Bryan S, et al. Decision maker perceptions of resource allocation processes in Canadian health care organizations: a national survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2103;13:247. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-247
  36. Madden L, Hussey R, Mooney G, Church E. Public health and economics in tandem: Programme budgeting, marginal analysis and priority setting in practice. Health Policy. 1995;33(2):161-168. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(95)93676-r
  37. Dionne F, Mitton C, Smith N, Donaldson C. Evaluation of the impact of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis in Vancouver Island Health Authority. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(4):234-242. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008182
  38. Mitton C, Mackenzie J, Cranston L, Teng F. Priority setting in the Provincial Health Services Authority – case study for the 2005/2006 planning cycle. Healthc Policy. 2006;2(1):91-106.
  39. Mitton C, Dionne F, Damji R, Campbell D, Bryan S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-169
  40. Patten S, Mitton C, Donaldson C. Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian regional health authority. Soc Sci Med. 2003;63:1121-1134. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.01.033
  41. Jimenez-Soto E, Alderman K, Hipgrave D, Firth S, Anderson A. Prioritization of investments in reproductive, women’s and children’s health: evidence-based recommendations for low and middle income countries in Asia and the Pacific – a subnational focus. http://www.who.int/pmnch/activities/advocacy/20121028_prioritise_investments.pdf. Published 2012.
  42. Smith N, Hall W, Mitton C, Bryan S, Urquhart B. What constitutes high performance in priority setting and resource allocation? Decision maker narratives identified from a survey and qualitative study in Canadian healthcare organizations. Health Serv Manage Res. 2014 Dec 4. pii: 0951484814559714.
  43. Lavis JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(1):37-45.
  44. Barwick MA, Peters J, Boydell K. Getting to uptake: do communities of practice support the implementation of evidence-based practice? J Can Acad Child Adolescent Psych. 2009;18(1):16-29.
  45. Shipan CR, Volden C. Policy diffusion: seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Adm Rev. 2012;72(6):788-796. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02610.x

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 June 2015
  • Revise Date: 18 August 2015
  • Accept Date: 14 September 2015
  • First Publish Date: 01 January 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics