SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Utökad sökning

id:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:liu-181505"
 

Sökning: id:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:liu-181505" > Clinical Priority S...

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

Drees, Catharina (författare)
Christian Albrechts Univ Kiel, Germany
Krevers, Barbro (författare)
Linköpings universitet,Avdelningen för samhälle och hälsa,Medicinska fakulteten
Ekerstad, Niklas (författare)
Linköpings universitet,Avdelningen för samhälle och hälsa,Medicinska fakulteten,NU Hosp Grp, Sweden
visa fler...
Rogge, Annette (författare)
Christian Albrechts Univ Kiel, Germany
Borzikowsky, Christoph (författare)
Univ Hosp Schleswig Holstein, Germany
McLennan, Stuart (författare)
Tech Univ Munich, Germany; Univ Basel, Switzerland
Buyx, Alena M. (författare)
Tech Univ Munich, Germany
visa färre...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2021-03-15
2022
Engelska.
Ingår i: International Journal of Health Policy and Management. - : Kerman University of Medical Sciences. - 2322-5939 .- 2322-5939. ; 11:7, s. 1148-1157
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
Abstract Ämnesord
Stäng  
  • Background: 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). Methods: 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. Results: 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% NBHWs national guidelines. 57% expressed a wish for further knowledge and training regarding the ethical platform and 51% for support in applying NBHWs national guidelines. Conclusion: There was a need for more support to deal with scarcity of resources and for increased knowledge about the ethical platform and NBHWs 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.

Ämnesord

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Hälsovetenskap -- Hälso- och sjukvårdsorganisation, hälsopolitik och hälsoekonomi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Health Sciences -- Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

Priority Setting; Sweden; National Guidelines; Physician; Fair Allocation; Decision-Making

Publikations- och innehållstyp

ref (ämneskategori)
art (ämneskategori)

Hitta via bibliotek

Till lärosätets databas

Sök utanför SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy