Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Clinical Priority Setting and Decision-Making in Sweden: A Cross-sectional Survey Among Physicians.

Authors
  • Drees, Catharina1
  • Krevers, Barbro2, 3
  • Ekerstad, Niklas2, 3, 4
  • Rogge, Annette1
  • Borzikowsky, Christoph5
  • McLennan, Stuart6, 7
  • Buyx, Alena M6
  • 1 Division of Biomedical Ethics, Institute of Experimental Medicine, ChristianAlbrechts-University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 2 Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Unit of Health Care Analysis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. , (Sweden)
  • 3 National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. , (Sweden)
  • 4 NU Hospital Group, The Research and Development Unit, Trollhättan, Sweden. , (Sweden)
  • 5 Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 6 Institute of History and Ethics in Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 7 Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. , (Switzerland)
Type
Published Article
Journal
International journal of health policy and management
Publication Date
Jul 01, 2022
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
1148–1157
Identifiers
DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.16
PMID: 33904696
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Priority setting in healthcare that aims to achieve a fair and efficient allocation of limited resources is a worldwide challenge. Sweden has developed a sophisticated approach. Still, there is a need for a more detailed insight on how measures permeate clinical life. This study aimed to assess physicians' views regarding (1) impact of scarce resources on patient care, (2) clinical decision-making, and (3) the ethical platform and national guidelines for healthcare by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW). An online cross-sectional questionnaire was sent to two groups in Sweden, 2016 and 2017. Group 1 represented 331 physicians from different departments at one University hospital and group 2 consisted of 923 members of the Society of Cardiology. Overall, a 26% (328/1254) response rate was achieved, 49% in group 1 (162/331), 18% in group 2 (166/923). Scarcity of resources was perceived by 59% more often than 'at least once per month,' whilst 60% felt less than 'well-prepared' to address this issue. Guidelines in general had a lot of influence and 19% perceived them as limiting decision-making. 86% professed to be mostly independent in decision-making. 36% knew the ethical platform 'well' and 'very well' and 64% NBHW's national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHW's national guidelines. There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHW's national guidelines. Independence in clinical decision-making was perceived as high and guidelines in general as important. Priority setting as one potential pathway to fair and transparent decision-making should be highlighted more in Swedish clinical settings, with special emphasis on the ethical platform. © 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times