Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Jun 12:7:84.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-84.

Priority setting in the provincial health services authority: survey of key decision makers

Affiliations

Priority setting in the provincial health services authority: survey of key decision makers

Flora Teng et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: In recent years, decision makers in Canada and elsewhere have expressed a desire for more explicit, evidence-based approaches to priority setting. To achieve this aim within health care organizations, knowledge of both the organizational context and stakeholder attitudes towards priority setting are required. The current work adds to a limited yet growing body of international literature describing priority setting practices in health organizations.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 25 key decision makers of the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia. Major themes and sub-themes were identified through content analysis.

Results: Priorities were described by decision makers as being set in an ad hoc manner, with resources generally allocated along historical lines. Participants identified the Strategic Plan and a strong research base as strengths of the organization. The main areas for improvement were a desire to have a more transparent process for priority setting, a need to develop a culture which supports explicit priority setting, and a focus on fairness in decision making. Barriers to an explicit allocation process included the challenge of providing specialized services for disparate patient groups, and a lack of formal training in priority setting amongst decision makers.

Conclusion: This study identified factors important to understanding organizational context and informed next steps for explicit priority setting for a provincial health authority. While the PHSA is unique in its organizational structure in Canada, lessons about priority setting should be transferable to other contexts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participants in the PHSA decision-maker survey. * The PHSA Executive is comprised of members from the portfolios outlined in the gray boxes. The numbers shown here represent only those who participated in the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PHSA organizational context model. *Additions to model extending work from Mitton and Donaldson [19].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mitton CR, Donaldson C. Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) Health Policy. 2003;64:335–348. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00198-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mitton C, Donaldson C. Priority Setting Toolkit: A guide to the use of economics in healthcare decision making. London, BMJ Publishing Group; 2004. p. 183.
    1. Vale L. Programme Budgeting: Key Decision Makers Survey. Aberdeen, Grampian Health Board; 1996.
    1. Miller P. Managing informed purchasing: a survey of decision makers. J Managed Med. 1997;11:35–42. - PubMed
    1. Mitton C, Prout S. Setting priorities in the south west of Western Australia: where are we now? Aust Health Rev. 2004;28:301–310. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources