Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK
MetadataShow full item record
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.
Lourenco , T , Grant , A , Burr , J & Vale , L 2010 , ' Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK ' Journal of Health Services Research and Policy , vol 15 , no. Suppl 2 , pp. 3-11 . , 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009090
Journal of Health Services Research and Policy
This is the final draft, after peer-review, of a manuscript published in RSM journals. The definitive version (c) The Royal Society of Medicine Press is available at www.rsmpress.com
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.