+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England



Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England



BMJ Open 5(7): E007908



Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England are tasked with making difficult decisions on which healthcare services to provide against the background of limited budgets. The question is how to ensure that these decisions are fair and legitimate. Accounts of what constitutes fair and legitimate priority setting in healthcare include Daniels' and Sabin's accountability for reasonableness (A4R) and Clark's and Weale's framework for the identification of social values. This study combines these accounts and asks whether the decisions of those CCGs that adhere to elements of such accounts are perceived as fairer and more legitimate by key stakeholders. The study addresses the empirical gap arising from a lack of research on whether frameworks such as A4R hold what they promise. It aims to understand the criteria that feature in CCG decision-making. Finally, it examines the usefulness of a decision-making audit tool (DMAT) in identifying the process and content criteria that CCGs apply when making decisions. The adherence of a sample of CCGs to criteria emerging from theories of fair priority setting will be examined using the DMAT developed by PL. The results will be triangulated with data from semistructured interviews with key stakeholders in the CCG sample to ascertain whether there is a correlation between those CCGs that performed well in the DMAT exercise and those whose decisions are perceived positively by interviewees. Descriptive statistical methods will be used to analyse the DMAT data. A combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis methods will be used to analyse the interview transcripts. Full ethics approval was received by the King's College London Biomedical Sciences, Dentistry, Medicine and Natural and Mathematical Sciences Research Ethics Subcommittee. The results of the study will be disseminated through publications in peer review journals.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 057651579

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26163034

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007908


Related references

Leadership of healthcare commissioning networks in England: a mixed-methods study on clinical commissioning groups. BMJ Open 3(2), 2013

Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?. Social Science and Medicine 68(4): 766-773, 2009

Views of NHS commissioners on commissioning support provision. Evidence from a qualitative study examining the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England. BMJ Open 4(10): E005970, 2015

Post-mortem general surgeon reflection on decision-making: a mixed-methods study of mortality audit data. Anz Journal of Surgery 88(10): 993-997, 2018

Improving shared decision-making in advanced Parkinson's disease: protocol of a mixed methods feasibility study. Pilot and Feasibility Studies 4: 94, 2018

Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study. Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making 15: 52, 2016

Study protocol: a mixed methods study to assess mental health recovery, shared decision-making and quality of life (Plan4Recovery). Bmc Health Services Research 16(1): 392, 2017

Primary care co-commissioning: challenges faced by clinical commissioning groups in England. British Journal of General Practice 68(666): 37-38, 2017

A Web-Based Decision Tool to Improve Contraceptive Counseling for Women With Chronic Medical Conditions: Protocol For a Mixed Methods Implementation Study. Jmir Research Protocols 7(4): E107, 2018

Patients' decision-making, experiences and preferences regarding pixantrone treatment in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: study protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods study. BMJ Open 9(5): E026505, 2019

Clinical decision-making at the end of life: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care 2018, 2018

How are clinical commissioning groups managing conflicts of interest under primary care co-commissioning in England? A qualitative analysis. BMJ Open 7(11): E018422, 2018

Primary care-led commissioning: applying lessons from the past to the early development of clinical commissioning groups in England. British Journal of General Practice 63(614): E611-E619, 2014

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Shared Decision-Making Model in Work Rehabilitation: A Mixed-Methods Study of Stakeholders' Perspectives. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2018, 2018

The work of commissioning: a multisite case study of healthcare commissioning in England's NHS. BMJ Open 3(9): E003341, 2013