Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK

Tania Lourenco, Adrian Grant, Jennifer Burr, Luke Vale

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. RESULTS: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3-11
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Health Services Research & Policy
Volume15
Issue numberSuppl 2
Early online date10 Feb 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

Organizations
Costs and Cost Analysis
Administrative Personnel
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Interviews
Incidence
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK. / Lourenco, Tania; Grant, Adrian; Burr, Jennifer; Vale, Luke.

In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, Vol. 15 , No. Suppl 2, 04.2010, p. 3-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lourenco, Tania ; Grant, Adrian ; Burr, Jennifer ; Vale, Luke. / Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK. In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2010 ; Vol. 15 , No. Suppl 2. pp. 3-11.
@article{68b6465487d645dcae9b47f90ecb55ca,
title = "Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. RESULTS: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs.",
author = "Tania Lourenco and Adrian Grant and Jennifer Burr and Luke Vale",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "3--11",
journal = "Journal of Health Services Research & Policy",
issn = "1355-8196",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "Suppl 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK

AU - Lourenco, Tania

AU - Grant, Adrian

AU - Burr, Jennifer

AU - Vale, Luke

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. RESULTS: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To identify how decision-makers in the NHS perceive and manage interventional procedures guidance and to determine whether additional information would be useful. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with seven providers, six commissioners and one policy-maker. The framework approach was used to analyse transcribed data, and emergent themes coded. Data were analysed separately for providers and commissioner organizations. RESULTS: Perceptions about how guidance is managed in provider organizations varied. Some decision-makers considered that guidance is handled very well whereas others think it is suboptimal and haphazard. It is unclear whether clinicians follow procedure for cautionary guidance. In commissioner organizations, guidance is not seen as a priority by most and is not considered an area that will soon enter routine clinical practice. Moreover, commissioners felt that guidance lacked relevance as there is no consideration of whether procedures are cost-effective or affordable. Despite this, respondents perceived that the content and quality of guidance is satisfactory. Useful additional information for inclusion in guidance would be: prevalence, incidence, cost, patients' views, consequences of using the new intervention, comparative information, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Management of interventional procedures guidance in the NHS can be improved. It is important to understand the ways in which guidance meets and fails to meet decision-makers' needs.

U2 - 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090

DO - 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 3

EP - 11

JO - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

JF - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

SN - 1355-8196

IS - Suppl 2

ER -