Background
Experience from work with priority setting in health and medical care indicates that the ethical guidelines that are at the heart of Swedish Parliament’s principles for priority setting are difficult to implement into practical clinical decision- making. The same can be said of the model for priority setting drawn up by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare in the national guidelines for care and treatment. For this reason, we need more knowledge on how principles for priority setting and related concepts are perceived by medical care personnel, the relevance of these concepts, and if there are other aspects that also impact the priority setting situation. We also need to develop new work methods to meet Parliament’s intentions with priority setting in health and medical care.
To contribute to the development of new work methods, we chose to study priority setting in primary care practice. Our primary purpose was to describe the way in which general practitioners and district nurses perceive the concepts severity of illness, benefit and cost-effectiveness when they rank priority for individual patients. Our secondary purpose was to compare medical personnel’s perception of the concepts severity of illness, benefit and cost-effectiveness with the definitions of these concepts in the model for vertical priority setting as established by the National Board of Health and Welfare.
Methods
Focus group interviews as a source of data collection was selected as the method since the study was explorative and the intention was to obtain as many aspects as possible pertaining to priority setting concepts. The method is suitable for collecting a large amount of information within a previously unexplored subject. Interviews were conducted with eight groups of physicians and nurses from four different primary care centers. The respondents selected had participated in a prospective study on practical priority setting, i.e. they had experience of implementing the concepts severity of illness, benefit, and cost-effectiveness in setting priorities in their daily work.
Results and Conclusions
Both the physicians and nurses expressed a simplified interpretation of the concepts severity of illness and benefit. One example of such simplification was that many nurses said that when ranking the severity of a condition, they based their decision on how imperative it was for the patient to see a physician. A
common response was that the concepts could be assessed from both patient and staff perspectives but that these assessments could differ. When asked to set priorities according to a specific template, respondents said that it was easier to rank patients with an acute condition that had a tangible effect on function and that could be immediately treated, than to rank patients according to factors that were a risk to their future health. This means that priority judgements based on knowledge of a patient category were perceived as uncertain and more difficult to use than direct personal experience of treating an individual patient. This was discussed, above all, by the physicians. Respondents gave several examples of actions taken despite that medical staff did not feel that there was any benefit to the patient.
In a comparison of how these three concepts are described in the model for priority setting on the policy level drawn up by the National Board of Health and Welfare and how medical personnel implemented the concepts, we found both similarities and dissimilarities.
A model based on these concepts can be of use in priority setting in primary care, but it must be supplemented and improved to be applicable to ranking patients in day-to-day medical care. Supplements that may be necessary are; clarification that a combination of medical and patient perspectives is intended, clarification of how to use the concept cost-effectiveness, and the addition of a time factor and factors related to the individual patient. There is also a need for a more structured way of working with evidence-based care. We also need to clarify the differences between setting priorities for patient categories and for individual patients in day-to-day medical care.
In our opinion, the model for priority setting on the patient category level can be improved to be more applicable as a template for decision-making on the individual patient level, however a supplementary model may be necessary to support priority setting on the individual level.