Search

Background: In Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. They are derived from the ethical principles established by the Swedish parliament 1997 but have been used only to a limited extent in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse: 1) GPs, nurses, and patients prioritising in routine primary care 2) The association between the three key priority setting criteria and the overall priority assigned by the GPs and nurses to individual patients. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanMethods: Paired questionnaires were distributed to all patients and the GPs or nurses they had contact with during a 2-week period at four health centres in Sweden. The staff registered the health conditions or health problem, and the planned intervention. Then they estimated the severity of the health condition, the expected patient benefit, and the cost-effectiveness of the planned intervention. Both the staff and the patients reported their overall prioritisation of the patient. In total, 1851 paired questionnaires were collected. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: Compared to the medical staff, the patients assigned relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions. Severity of the health condition was the priority setting criterion that had the strongest association with the overall priority for the staff as a whole, but for the GPs it was cost-effectiveness. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusions: The challenge for primary care providers is to balance the patients demands with medical needs and cost-effectiveness. Transparent priority setting in primary care might contribute to a greater consensus between GPs and nurses on how to use the key priority setting criteria., Funding Agencies|FORSS (Council for Research in Southeast Sweden)||county council of Jonkoping||county council of Kalmar||county council of Ostergotland||Faculty of Health Sciences, Linkoping University

Background: Swedish health care authorities use three key criteria to produce national guidelines for local priority setting: severity of the health condition, expected patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness of medical intervention. Priority setting in primary health care (PHC) has significant implications for health costs and outcomes in the health care system. Nevertheless, these guidelines have been implemented to a very limited degree in PHC. The objective of the study was to qualitatively assess how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses perceive the application of the three key priority-setting criteria. Methods: Focus groups were held with GPs and nurses at primary health care centres, where the staff had a short period of experience in using the criteria for prioritising in their daily work. Results: The staff found the three key priority-setting criteria (severity, patient benefit, and cost-effectiveness) to be valuable for priority setting in PHC. However, when the criteria were applied in PHC, three additional dimensions were identified: 1) viewpoint (medical or patients), 2) timeframe (now or later), and 3) evidence level (group or individual). Conclusions: The three key priority-setting criteria were useful. Considering the three additional dimensions might enhance implementation of national guidelines in PHC and is probably a prerequisite for the criteria to be useful in priority setting for individual patients., Original Publication: Eva Arvidsson, Malin André, Lars Borgquist and Per Carlsson, Priority setting in primary health care - dilemmas and opportunities: a focus group study, 2010, BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, (11), 71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-71 Licensee: BioMed Central http://www.biomedcentral.com