Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: Investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

Claire Harris, Kelly Allen, Vanessa Brooke, Tim Dyer, Cara Waller, Richard King, Wayne Ramsey, Duncan Mortimer

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment. Methods: Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed. Results: Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised. Conclusion: This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Article number370
Number of pages30
JournalBMC Health Services Research
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 May 2017

Keywords

  • De-adopt
  • De-implement
  • De-list
  • Decision-making
  • Decommission
  • Disinvestment
  • Health technology
  • Implementation
  • Resource allocation
  • TCP

Cite this

@article{1fb1e64124d44a5bae8c8aab0f0579b5,
title = "Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6: Investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting",
abstract = "Background: This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment. Methods: Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed. Results: Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised. Conclusion: This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.",
keywords = "De-adopt, De-implement, De-list, Decision-making, Decommission, Disinvestment, Health technology, Implementation, Resource allocation, TCP",
author = "Claire Harris and Kelly Allen and Vanessa Brooke and Tim Dyer and Cara Waller and Richard King and Wayne Ramsey and Duncan Mortimer",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "25",
doi = "10.1186/s12913-017-2269-1",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
journal = "BMC Health Services Research",
issn = "1472-6963",
publisher = "Springer-Verlag London Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6 : Investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting. / Harris, Claire; Allen, Kelly; Brooke, Vanessa; Dyer, Tim; Waller, Cara; King, Richard; Ramsey, Wayne; Mortimer, Duncan.

In: BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, 370, 25.05.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 6

T2 - Investigating methods to identify, prioritise, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting

AU - Harris, Claire

AU - Allen, Kelly

AU - Brooke, Vanessa

AU - Dyer, Tim

AU - Waller, Cara

AU - King, Richard

AU - Ramsey, Wayne

AU - Mortimer, Duncan

PY - 2017/5/25

Y1 - 2017/5/25

N2 - Background: This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment. Methods: Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed. Results: Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised. Conclusion: This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

AB - Background: This is the sixth in a series of papers reporting Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) in a local healthcare setting. The SHARE program was established to investigate a systematic, integrated, evidence-based approach to disinvestment within a large Australian health service. This paper describes the methods employed in undertaking pilot disinvestment projects. It draws a number of lessons regarding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods; particularly regarding the crucial first step of identifying targets for disinvestment. Methods: Literature reviews, survey, interviews, consultation and workshops were used to capture and process the relevant information. A theoretical framework was adapted for evaluation and explication of disinvestment projects, including a taxonomy for the determinants of effectiveness, process of change and outcome measures. Implementation, evaluation and costing plans were developed. Results: Four literature reviews were completed, surveys were received from 15 external experts, 65 interviews were conducted, 18 senior decision-makers attended a data gathering workshop, 22 experts and local informants were consulted, and four decision-making workshops were undertaken. Mechanisms to identify disinvestment targets and criteria for prioritisation and decision-making were investigated. A catalogue containing 184 evidence-based opportunities for disinvestment and an algorithm to identify disinvestment projects were developed. An Expression of Interest process identified two potential disinvestment projects. Seventeen additional projects were proposed through a non-systematic nomination process. Four of the 19 proposals were selected as pilot projects but only one reached the implementation stage. Factors with potential influence on the outcomes of disinvestment projects are discussed and barriers and enablers in the pilot projects are summarised. Conclusion: This study provides an in-depth insight into the experience of disinvestment in one local healthcare service. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to report the process of disinvestment from identification, through prioritisation and decision-making, to implementation and evaluation, and finally explication of the processes and outcomes.

KW - De-adopt

KW - De-implement

KW - De-list

KW - Decision-making

KW - Decommission

KW - Disinvestment

KW - Health technology

KW - Implementation

KW - Resource allocation

KW - TCP

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019026291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12913-017-2269-1

DO - 10.1186/s12913-017-2269-1

M3 - Review Article

VL - 17

JO - BMC Health Services Research

JF - BMC Health Services Research

SN - 1472-6963

IS - 1

M1 - 370

ER -