Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Clinical management and prioritisation criteria Finnish experiences

Clinical management and prioritisation criteria Finnish experiences The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of 14 prioritisation criteria from nurses’, doctors’, local politicians’ and the general public's perspective. Respondents (nurses, n =682, doctors, n =837 politicians, n =1,133 and the general public, n =1,178) received a questionnaire with 16 imaginary patient cases, each containing 2‐3 different prioritisation criteria. The subjects were asked to indicate how important it was for them that the treatments in the presented patient cases be subsidised by the community. All respondents preferred treatments for poor people and children. With the exception of the doctors, the three other study groups also prioritised elderly patients. Treatment for institutionalised patients, those with self‐induced disease, diseases with both poor and good prognosis, and mild disease were given low priorities. Priority setting in health care should be regarded as a continuous process because of changes in attitudes. However, the best method for surveying opinions and ethical principles concerning prioritisation has not yet been discovered. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Health Organisation and Management Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/clinical-management-and-prioritisation-criteria-finnish-experiences-QtjP0nx6EB
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 MCB UP Ltd. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1477-7266
DOI
10.1108/14777260310505110
pmid
14628487
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptability of 14 prioritisation criteria from nurses’, doctors’, local politicians’ and the general public's perspective. Respondents (nurses, n =682, doctors, n =837 politicians, n =1,133 and the general public, n =1,178) received a questionnaire with 16 imaginary patient cases, each containing 2‐3 different prioritisation criteria. The subjects were asked to indicate how important it was for them that the treatments in the presented patient cases be subsidised by the community. All respondents preferred treatments for poor people and children. With the exception of the doctors, the three other study groups also prioritised elderly patients. Treatment for institutionalised patients, those with self‐induced disease, diseases with both poor and good prognosis, and mild disease were given low priorities. Priority setting in health care should be regarded as a continuous process because of changes in attitudes. However, the best method for surveying opinions and ethical principles concerning prioritisation has not yet been discovered.

Journal

Journal of Health Organisation and ManagementEmerald Publishing

Published: Oct 1, 2003

Keywords: Health services sector; Queuing time; Performance criteria

References