Literature DB >> 26613534

How clinical rationing works in practice: A case study of morbid obesity surgery.

Amanda Owen-Smith1, Jenny Donovan2, Joanna Coast2.   

Abstract

Difficulties in setting healthcare priorities are encountered throughout the world. There is no agreement on the most appropriate principles or methods for healthcare rationing although there is some consensus that it should be undertaken as systematically and accountably as possible. Although some steps towards achieving accountability have been made at the macro and meso level, at the consultation level rationing remains implicit and poorly understood. Using morbid obesity surgery as a case study, we observed a series of UK National Health Service consultations where rationing was ongoing and conducted in-depth interviews with doctors and patients (2011-2014). A longitudinal approach was taken to research and in total 22 consultations were observed and 78 interviews were undertaken. Sampling was undertaken purposively and theoretically and analyses were undertaken thematically. Clinicians needed to prioritise 55 patients from 450 eligible referrals, but disagreed over the extent to which clinical and financial factors were the driving force behind decision-making. The most prominent rationing technique observed in consultations was rationing by selection, but examples of rationing by delay, by deterrence, and by deflection were also commonplace. Although all clinicians sought to avoid rationing by denial, only six of the 22 patients recruited to the research were known to have been treated at the end of the three-year period. Most clinicians sought to manage rationing implicitly, and only one explained the link between decision-making criteria and financial constraints on care availability. Although existing frameworks for categorising NHS rationing techniques were useful in identifying implicit strategies, in practice these techniques over-lapped substantially and we have proposed a simpler framework for analysing NHS rationing decisions at the consultation level, which includes just three categories - rationing by exclusion, rationing by deterrence, and rationing by delay.
Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Healthcare rationing; Morbid obesity; NHS; Observation; Priority setting; Qualitative; Resource allocation; UK

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26613534     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  4 in total

1.  'There is no such thing as getting sick justly or unjustly' - a qualitative study of clinicians' beliefs on the relevance of personal responsibility as a basis for health prioritisation.

Authors:  Gloria Traina; Eli Feiring
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  "I didn't have to prove to anybody that I was a good candidate": a case study framing international bariatric tourism by Canadians as circumvention tourism.

Authors:  Carly Jackson; Jeremy Snyder; Valorie A Crooks; M Ruth Lavergne
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Rationing for medicines by health care providers in Indonesia National Health Insurance System at hospital setting: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Endang Yuniarti; Yayi Suryo Prabandari; Erna Kristin; Sri Suryawati
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2019-05-07

4.  Rationing cancer treatment: a qualitative study of perceptions of legitimate limit-setting.

Authors:  Eli Feiring; Hege Wang
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.655

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.