Dataset Information

Case studies for implementing MCDA for tender and purchasing decisions in hospitals in Indonesia and Thailand.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach has been suggested for helping purchasers in low- and middle-income countries in an evidence-based assessment of multi-source pharmaceuticals to mitigate potential adverse consequences of price-based decisions on patient access to effective medicines. Six workshops for developing MCDA-instruments for purchasing were conducted in Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Thailand, and Kuwait in 2017-2020. In Indonesia and Thailand, two pilot-initiatives aimed to implement the instruments for hospital drug purchasing decisions.

Objective

By analysing and comparing the experiences and progress from the MCDA-workshops and the two case-examples for hospital implementation in Indonesia and Thailand, we aim to gain insights, which will support future implementation.

Methods

The selection of criteria and their average weight were compared quantitatively across the MCDA-instruments developed in all four countries and settings. Implementation experiences from two case-examples were studied, which included (1) testing the instrument across a variety of drugs in seven hospitals in Thailand and (2) implementation in one specialty hospital in Indonesia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted via web-conferences with four diverse stakeholders in the pilot implementation projects in Thailand and Indonesia. The open responses were evaluated through qualitative content analysis and synthesis using grounded theory coding.

Results

Drivers for implementation were making 'better' decisions, achieving transparency and a rational selection process, reducing drug shortages, and assuring consistent quality. Challenges were seen on the technical level (definition or of criteria, scoring methods, access to data) or change-related challenges (resistance, perception of increased workload, lack of competencies or capabilities, lack of resources). The comparison of the MCDA instruments revealed high similarity, but also clear need for local adaptations in each specific case.

Conclusion

A set a of measures targeting challenges related to utility, methodology, data requirements, capacity building and training as well as the broader societal impact can help to overcome challenges in the implementation. Careful planning of implementation and organizational change is recommended for ensuring commitment and fit to local context and culture. Designing a collaborative change program for each application of MCDA-based purchasing will enable healthcare stakeholders to maximally benefit in terms of quality and effectiveness of care and access for patients.

SUBMITTER: Holtorf AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8200782 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is an evidence-based practice, but hospitals face significant barriers to its adoption. Our objective was to examine how organizational context (e.g., size, employee attitudes toward the clinical practice) and implementation strategies (i.e., the actions taken to routinize a clinical practice) drive successful implementation of immediate postpartum LARC services, with a goal of informing the design of future implementation interventions.MethodsWe conducted a comparative case study of the implementation of inpatient postpartum contraceptive care at 11 US maternity hospitals. In 2017-2018, we conducted site visits that included semi-structured key informant interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Qualitative measures of implementation success included stakeholder satisfaction, routinization, and sustainability of immediate postpartum LARC services. Qualitative content analysis and cross-case synthesis explored relationships among organizational context, implementation strategies, and implementation success.ResultsWe completed semi-structured interviews with 78 clinicians, nurses, residents, pharmacy and revenue cycle staff, and hospital administrators. Successful implementation required three essential conditions: effective implementation champions, an enabling financial environment, and hospital administrator engagement. Six other contextual conditions were influential: trust and effective communication, alignment with stakeholders' professional values, perception of meeting patients' needs, robust learning climate, compatibility with workflow, and positive attitudes and adequate knowledge about the clinical practice. On average, sites used 18 (range 11-22) strategies. Strategies to optimize the financial environment and train clinicians and staff were commonly used. Strategies to plan and evaluate implementation and to engage patients emerged as promising to address barriers to practice change, yet were often underused.ConclusionsImplementation efforts in maternity settings may be more successful if they select strategies to optimize local conditions for success. Our findings elucidate key contextual conditions to target and provide a menu of promising implementation strategies for incorporating recommended contraceptive services into routine maternity practice. Additional prospective research should evaluate whether these strategies effectively optimize local conditions for successful implementation in a variety of settings.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear.We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings.MethodsSemi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.ResultsNinety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus.Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English.ConclusionsThe clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way".The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.

Project description:Background/objectivesSternal-wound infections (SWIs) are rare but consequential healthcare-healthcare-associated infections following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The impact of SWIs associated on the cost of health care provision is unknown. The aim of this study was to quantify the burden of CABG-related SWIs across countries with mature health care systems and estimate value-based purchasing (VBP) levels based on the local burden.MethodsA structured literature review identified relevant data for 14 countries (the Netherlands, France, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Japan, Spain, the United States, Brazil, Israel, Taiwan, and Thailand). Data, including SWI rates, CABG volume, and length of stay, were used to populate a previously published Markov model that simulates the patient's CABG-care pathway and estimates the economic (US$) and care burden of SWIs for each country. Based on this burden, scenarios for VBP were explored for each country. A feasible cost of intervention per patient for an intervention providing a 20% reduction in the SWI rate was calculated.ResultsThe SWI burden varied considerably between settings, with SWIs occurring in 2.8% (the United Kingdom) to 10.4% (the Netherlands) of CABG procedures, while the costs per SWI varied between US$8172 (Brazil) to US$54 180 (Japan). Additional length of stay after SWI was the largest cost driver. The overall highest annual burden was identified in the United States (US$336 million) at a mean cost of US$36 769 per SWI. Given the SWI burden, the median cost of intervention per patient that a hospital could afford ranged from US$20 (US$13 to US$42) in France to US$111 (US$65 to US$183) in Japan.ConclusionsSWIs represent a large burden with a median cost of US$13 995 per case and US$900 per CABG procedure. By tackling SWIs, there is potential to simultaneously reduce the burden on health care systems and improve outcomes for patients. Mutually beneficial VBP agreements might be one method to promote uptake of novel methods of SWI prevention.