Search results

Worldwide, there is significant growth in the cost of (and demand for) healthcare, which often clashes with a requirement to contain expenditure. This duality leads to an increasing need for a systematic approach to disinvestment in health technologies. The purpose of this paper is to consider the challenges and opportunities for disinvestment policy decisions in Australia. It discusses the implementation of the Choosing Wisely campaign and the need for rigorous evaluation of such campaigns in the Australian healthcare system.

The authors highlight characteristics of disinvestment: what it is and what it is not and discuss international examples of identifying low value care, including the recent Choosing Wisely initiative. The authors discuss the barriers to implementing initiatives such as Choosing Wisely and the complexities in evaluating their effectiveness.

While the primary purpose of the Choosing Wisely campaign is improved decision making through clinical engagement, it is expected that implementation could lead to resource savings alongside improvements in patient safety and service quality. While there is research looking to understand the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of initiatives such as Choosing Wisely, little is known about broader patient impacts, and more attention on the quantification of their effect on both patient outcomes and resource use is needed.

This work highlights the limited knowledge around implementation of disinvestment strategies and the paucity of research around the impact of strategies such as Choosing Wisely in the Australian public hospital system. This is important as future research in this area will give greater certainty about the benefits and consequences of Choosing Wisely leading to improved opportunities for resource savings and patient safety and quality.

As a discipline, health organisation and management is focused on health-specific, collective behaviours and activities, whose empirical and theoretical scholarship remains under-utilised in the field of implementation science. This under-engagement between fields potentially constrains the understanding of mechanisms influencing the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care. The aim of this viewpoint article is to examine how a selection of theories, models and frameworks (theoretical approaches) have been applied to better understand phenomena at the micro, meso and macro systems levels for the implementation of health care innovations. The purpose of which is to illustrate the potential applicability and complementarity of embedding health organisation and management scholarship within the study of implementation science.

The authors begin by introducing the two fields, before exploring how exemplary theories, models and frameworks have been applied to study the implementation of innovations in the health organisation and management literature. In this viewpoint article, the authors briefly reviewed a targeted collection of articles published in the Journal of Health Organization and Management (as a proxy for the broader literature) and identified the theories, models and frameworks they applied in implementation studies. The authors then present a more detailed exploration of three interdisciplinary theories and how they were applied across three different levels of health systems: normalization process theory (NPT) at the micro individual and interpersonal level; institutional logics at the meso organisational level; and complexity theory at the macro policy level. These examples are used to illustrate practical considerations when implementing change in health care organisations that can and have been used across various levels of the health system beyond these presented examples.

Within the Journal of Health Organization and Management, the authors identified 31 implementation articles, utilising 34 theories, models or frameworks published in the last five years. As an example of how theories, models and frameworks can be applied at the micro individual and interpersonal levels, behavioural theories originating from psychology and sociology (e.g. NPT) were used to guide the selection of appropriate implementation strategies or explain implementation outcomes based on identified barriers and enablers to implementing innovations of interest. Projects aiming to implement change at the meso organisational level can learn from the application of theories such as institutional logics, which help elucidate how relationships at the macro and micro-level have a powerful influence on successful or unsuccessful organisational action. At the macro policy level, complexity theory represented a promising direction for implementation science by considering health care organisations as complex adaptive systems.

This paper illustrates the utility of a range of theories, models and frameworks for implementation science, from a health organisation and management standpoint. The authors’ viewpoint article suggests that increased crossovers could contribute to strengthening both disciplines and our understanding of how to support the implementation of evidence-based innovations in health care.

Joint commissioning is an important part of the current health and social care context and will continue to be crucial in the future. An essential component of any commissioning process is priority setting, and this paper begins to explore the idea of integrated priority setting as a key element of health and social care commissioning. After setting out the key terminology in this area and the main priority‐setting processes for health and social care, the paper describes a number of barriers that might be encountered in integrated priority setting. We argue that there are significant barriers in financing, accessibility, evidence and politics, and it is important that such barriers are acknowledged if priority setting is to become a component of joint commissioning. While these barriers are not insurmountable, the solution lies in engagement with a range of stakeholders, rather than simply a technical process.

As Australia struggles to meet increased demand for healthcare and contain expenditure there has been a focus on primary care and its role in demand management and keeping people out of expensive secondary care. However, with domestic policy struggling to find a suitable approach consideration of English policy could well be fruitful in the quest to strengthen and develop primary care in Australia. The purpose of this paper is to consider policy developments in England and explores these in relation to the Australian healthcare system.

The authors highlight the key changes to policy that have occurred in the English healthcare system in recent years, and discuss whether they have proven successful. The authors discuss the barriers to implementing similar approaches in Australia, particularly the difference in system structure that would necessitate policy adaptation.

Whilst there are differences in the structure and organisation of funding and service provision between countries, there are developments in England that are worthy of consideration from an Australian perspective. These include a focus on funding and commissioning that rewards quality not just activity and volume. As Australia sees the development of new primary care organisations that are tasked with commissioning then developments and lessons around the technical and relational aspects will be important to consider.

The work highlights that Australia might consider learning from the English experience in this area and the types of incentives that may increase efficiency and quality of health service provision. This is important as it potentially gives greater certainty about those approaches most likely to yield beneficial outcomes for patients and the broader system.