Önceliklendirme: Arnavutluk Onkoloji Hastanesi Çalışanlarının Gözlem, Görüş ve Deneyimlerinin İncelenmesi
Öz
Sağlık personelinin zaman ve diğer kaynaklar yetersiz olduğunda sağlık bakımı ihtiyacı olan hastalar arasında öncelik yapmaları gerekebilmektedir. Bu çalışmada önceliklendirme ile ilgili olarak, süreçte rol alanların gözlem, görüş ve deneyimlerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın evrenini Arnavutluk’ta onkoloji merkezinde çalışan hekim ve hemşireler oluşturmaktadır. Çalışma grubunun seçiminde katılımcıların bazı kriterleri karşılamasına dayanan kriter temelli örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmaya toplam 70 sağlık personeli (hekim ve hemşire olmak üzere) katılmıştır. Yarı yapılandırılmış soru formu kullanılarak derinlemesine görüşmeler yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler içerik analizi için kodlama yaparak ayrıştırılmıştır. Hekimlerin %29,6’sı ve hemşirelerin de %27,9’u “Mevcut Olan İlaçların Dağıtımında” önceliklendirme yaptıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Önceliklendirme kararı verirken kullanılması gereken kriterleri önem sırasına dizmeleri istendiğinde, hekimlerin %37’si, hemşirelerin %48,8’i hastalığın şiddetini ilk sıraya koymuşlardır. Arnavutluk’ta birçok ülkede olduğu gibi otorite tarafından belirlenmiş önceliklendirme kriterleri bulunmamaktadır. Hekim ve hemşireler kendi kriterlerini oluşturmakta ve bunu yaparken de en çok hastalığın şiddetini göz önünde bulundurmaktadırlar.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aidem, J. M. (2017). Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study. Health Policy, 121(6), 683-690.
- Barra, M., Broqvist, M., Gustavsson, E., Henriksson, M., Juth, N., Sandman, L., & Solberg, C. T. (2020). Severity as a priority setting criterion: setting a challenging research agenda. Health Care Analysis, 28(1), 25-44.
- Claridge, J. A., & Fabian, T. C. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine. World journal of surgery, 29(5), 547-553.
- Farrar, S., Ryan, M., Ross, D., & Ludbrook, A. (2000). Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social science & medicine, 50(1), 63-75.
- Ham, C., & Glenn, R. (2003). Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
- Hardyman, W., Daunt, K. L., & Kitchener, M. (2015). Value co-creation through patient engagement in health care: a micro-level approach and research agenda. Public Management Review, 17(1), 90-107.
- IARC. (2018). International Agency for Research on Cancer. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). https://www.iarc.who.int/
- INSTAT. (2002). Shkaqet e vdekjeve, Tirana. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). http://www.instat.gov.al/al/temat/kushtet-sociale/sh%C3%ABndet%C3%ABsia/publikimet/2021/shkaqet-e-vdekjeve-2020/
- Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., & Martin, D. K. (2007). Priority setting at the micro-, meso-and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda. Health policy, 82(1), 78-94.
- Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., & Martin, D. K. (2009). Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?. Social science & medicine, 68(4), 766-773.
- Kapiriri, L., & Norheim, O. F. (2004). Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bulletin of the world Health Organization, 82, 172-179.
- Klein, R., Day, P., & Redmayne, S. (1995). Rationing in the NHS: the dance of the seven veils—in reverse. British medical bulletin, 51(4), 769-780.
- Litva, A., Coast, J., Donovan, J., Eyles, J., Shepherd, M., Tacchi, J., ... & Morgan, K. (2002). ‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine, 54(12), 1825-1837.
- Maluka, S., Kamuzora, P., SanSebastián, M., Byskov, J., Ndawi, B., Olsen, Ø. E., & Hurtig, A. K. (2011). Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation. Implementation Science, 6(1), 1-15.
- Mitton, C. R., & Donaldson, C. (2003). Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Health Policy, 64(3), 335-348.
- Norheim, O. F. (2005). Rights to specialized health care in Norway: a normative perspective. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33(4), 641-649.
- Norheim, O.F. (2003). In: Ham C, Robert G, editor. Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Open University Press, Norway; 94-172
- Reeleder, D., Martin, D. K., Keresztes, C., & Singer, P. A. (2005). What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?. BMC health services research, 5(1), 1-6.
- Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 129, 671-85.
- Gary Sibbald, R., & Woo, K. Y. (2008). The biology of chronic foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 24(S1), S25-S30.
- Top, M. (2006). Sağlık hizmetlerinde önceliklerin belirlenmesi: Türkiye’de öncelik belirleme sürecinde rol alan tarafların görüşleri ve sağlık politikalarına ilişkin değerlendirmeleri. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 9(1), 93-123.
- World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Primary health care in Albania: rapid assessment. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/373718/alb-phc-ra-eng.pdf
- Yiğit, A. (2020). Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme. In Çalışkan, Z., Oğuzhan, G. (Ed.). Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme Kavram ve Yöntemler (1. Baskı, 39-55). Ankara, Gazi Kitabevi.
Prioritization: In Health Services: Examination of Observations, Opinions And Experiences Of Albania Oncology Hospital Employees
Öz
Health personnel may need to make priority settings among patients when time and other resources are insufficient. In this study, it is aimed to examine the observations, opinions, and experiences of those who take part in the process regarding prioritization. The target population of the study consists of physicians and nurses that work in this hospital. In the selection of the study group, criterion-based sampling method, which is based on the participants' meeting some criteria, was used. A total of 70 health personnel (physicians and nurses) participated in the study. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire. The obtained data were separated by coding for internal analysis. Towards the health service that they should make the most prioritization 29.6% of physicians and 27.9% of nurses answered Distribution of Existing Drugs. In the prioritization criteria, 37% of physicians and 48.8% of nurses indicated the severity of the disease first. In Albania, as in many countries, there are no prioritization criteria determined by the authority. Physicians and nurses create their own criteria.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aidem, J. M. (2017). Stakeholder views on criteria and processes for priority setting in Norway: a qualitative study. Health Policy, 121(6), 683-690.
- Barra, M., Broqvist, M., Gustavsson, E., Henriksson, M., Juth, N., Sandman, L., & Solberg, C. T. (2020). Severity as a priority setting criterion: setting a challenging research agenda. Health Care Analysis, 28(1), 25-44.
- Claridge, J. A., & Fabian, T. C. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine. World journal of surgery, 29(5), 547-553.
- Farrar, S., Ryan, M., Ross, D., & Ludbrook, A. (2000). Using discrete choice modelling in priority setting: an application to clinical service developments. Social science & medicine, 50(1), 63-75.
- Ham, C., & Glenn, R. (2003). Reasonable rationing: international experience of priority setting in health care. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
- Hardyman, W., Daunt, K. L., & Kitchener, M. (2015). Value co-creation through patient engagement in health care: a micro-level approach and research agenda. Public Management Review, 17(1), 90-107.
- IARC. (2018). International Agency for Research on Cancer. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). https://www.iarc.who.int/
- INSTAT. (2002). Shkaqet e vdekjeve, Tirana. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). http://www.instat.gov.al/al/temat/kushtet-sociale/sh%C3%ABndet%C3%ABsia/publikimet/2021/shkaqet-e-vdekjeve-2020/
- Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., & Martin, D. K. (2007). Priority setting at the micro-, meso-and macro-levels in Canada, Norway and Uganda. Health policy, 82(1), 78-94.
- Kapiriri, L., Norheim, O. F., & Martin, D. K. (2009). Fairness and accountability for reasonableness. Do the views of priority setting decision makers differ across health systems and levels of decision making?. Social science & medicine, 68(4), 766-773.
- Kapiriri, L., & Norheim, O. F. (2004). Criteria for priority-setting in health care in Uganda: exploration of stakeholders' values. Bulletin of the world Health Organization, 82, 172-179.
- Klein, R., Day, P., & Redmayne, S. (1995). Rationing in the NHS: the dance of the seven veils—in reverse. British medical bulletin, 51(4), 769-780.
- Litva, A., Coast, J., Donovan, J., Eyles, J., Shepherd, M., Tacchi, J., ... & Morgan, K. (2002). ‘The public is too subjective’: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science & Medicine, 54(12), 1825-1837.
- Maluka, S., Kamuzora, P., SanSebastián, M., Byskov, J., Ndawi, B., Olsen, Ø. E., & Hurtig, A. K. (2011). Implementing accountability for reasonableness framework at district level in Tanzania: a realist evaluation. Implementation Science, 6(1), 1-15.
- Mitton, C. R., & Donaldson, C. (2003). Setting priorities and allocating resources in health regions: lessons from a project evaluating program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Health Policy, 64(3), 335-348.
- Norheim, O. F. (2005). Rights to specialized health care in Norway: a normative perspective. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33(4), 641-649.
- Norheim, O.F. (2003). In: Ham C, Robert G, editor. Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Open University Press, Norway; 94-172
- Reeleder, D., Martin, D. K., Keresztes, C., & Singer, P. A. (2005). What do hospital decision-makers in Ontario, Canada, have to say about the fairness of priority setting in their institutions?. BMC health services research, 5(1), 1-6.
- Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present, 129, 671-85.
- Gary Sibbald, R., & Woo, K. Y. (2008). The biology of chronic foot ulcers in persons with diabetes. Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 24(S1), S25-S30.
- Top, M. (2006). Sağlık hizmetlerinde önceliklerin belirlenmesi: Türkiye’de öncelik belirleme sürecinde rol alan tarafların görüşleri ve sağlık politikalarına ilişkin değerlendirmeleri. Hacettepe Sağlık İdaresi Dergisi, 9(1), 93-123.
- World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Primary health care in Albania: rapid assessment. (Erişim: 01.09.2019). https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/373718/alb-phc-ra-eng.pdf
- Yiğit, A. (2020). Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme. In Çalışkan, Z., Oğuzhan, G. (Ed.). Sağlık Teknolojisi Değerlendirme Kavram ve Yöntemler (1. Baskı, 39-55). Ankara, Gazi Kitabevi.
Ayrıntılar
| Birincil Dil | Türkçe |
|---|---|
| Konular | Sağlık Politikası |
| Bölüm | Araştırma Makalesi |
| Yazarlar | |
| Yayımlanma Tarihi | 31 Aralık 2021 |
| Kabul Tarihi | 21 Ekim 2021 |
| Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2021 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 20 |
