Published 9 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1846
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1846

Analysis

Clinical priority setting

¹ Department of Thoracic Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, 5020 Bergen, Norway, ² Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Bergen, Kalfarveien 31, 5018 Bergen, Norway

Twelve years ago (BMJ 1996;312:1553-4) the BMJ argued that health systems needed to be explicit about rationing and published articles describing different ways of rationing fairly. Here a clinician, two ethicists (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1850), and four health economists (doi:10.1136/bmj.a1872) discuss how their ideas have developed—and been put into practice—since then

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

There are no simple solutions to resource allocation in health care,^{1 2} but the principles guiding fair priority setting are quite straightforward.^{3 4 5} This article explains the key principles and criteria for fair and clinically relevant priority setting. Clinicians should know these basic principles and be active in improving priority setting at all levels of the healthcare system.

Clinical priority setting means choosing whom to investigate and what diagnostic tests to perform; sorting the flow of patients so some are diagnosed or treated before others; allocating patients to surgery, medical treatment, or watchful observation; and selecting or excluding patients for a given treatment.^{6 7} Justice requires a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of priority setting.⁸

Clinicians’ decisions rest on two types of information: the patient’s severity of disease (prognosis without the intervention) and the expected outcome (prognosis with the intervention). The evidence underlying their judgment is also important.⁹ Clinicians can help . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

It’s the evidence, stupid

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2008 337: a2119. [Extract] [Full Text]

Why Oregon went wrong

Vidhya Alakeson
BMJ 2008 337: a2044. [Extract] [Full Text]

Where are we in the rationing debate?

Susan Dorr Goold and Nancy M Baum
BMJ 2008 337: a2047. [Extract] [Full Text]

Accountability for reasonableness: an update

Norman Daniels and James E Sabin
BMJ 2008 337: a1850. [Extract] [Full Text]

Moving forward on rationing: an economic view

Cam Donaldson, Angela Bate, Peter Brambleby, and Howard Waldner
BMJ 2008 337: a1872. [Extract] [Full Text]

National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments

Michael D Rawlins and Anthony J Culyer
BMJ 2004 329: 224-227. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The failings of NICE

Richard Smith
BMJ 2000 321: 1363-1364. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Healthcare rationingare additional criteria needed for assessing evidence based clinical practice guidelines?

Ole Frithjof Norheim
BMJ 1999 319: 1426-1429. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The second phase of priority setting • Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care • Fairness as a problem of love and the heart: a clinician's perspective on priority setting • Israel's basic basket of health services: the importance of being explicitly implicit

Søren Holm, James E Sabin, David Chinitz, Carmel Shalev, Noya Galai, and Avi Israeli
BMJ 1998 317: 1000-1007. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hansen, P. (2009). Commentary on 'What is a priority?' by Paul Spicker. J Health Serv Res Policy 14: 117-118 [Full text]  
• Spicker, P. (2009). Author's response. J Health Serv Res Policy 14: 119-119 [Full text]  
• Goold, S. D., Baum, N. M (2008). Where are we in the rationing debate?. BMJ 337: a2047-a2047 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Don't assume everyone agrees with you.

Graham M Kyle
bmj.com, 20 Oct 2008 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>