Department managers’ perceptions of a priority-setting model in a local healthcare organisation: a mixed-methods study

Priority-setting models have the potential to enhance transparency and support decision-making under conditions of resource scarcity; however, their practical application remains limited, particularly in large-scale decommissioning programmes. This article examines department managers’ perceptions of using a National Model for Transparent Prioritization (NMTP) at their clinics during the implementation of a decommissioning programme. In addition, the study explores whether the model contributes to fair priority setting and to procedural and substantive legitimacy. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data from a survey (n = 33) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22). The analysis addressed six questions grouped into two overarching themes: (1) the model’s use and contribution (adoption, exclusion, and inclusion of care) and (2) the model’s legitimacy (acceptance, justification, and fairness of priorities). Department managers expressed varying perceptions of the NMTP. Approximately half of them considered the time and resources required to be justified and perceived that the model ensured patients with the greatest needs were given the highest priority. About one third agreed that the NMTP was accepted as a tool for prioritization and resource allocation, and a similar proportion reported that the NMTP had been used to exclude care that was previously provided. Department managers perceived that the NMTP facilitated the application of the Swedish ethical guidelines; however, they also identified several challenges associated with its use in the context of a large-scale decommissioning programme, including time constraints, a substantial initial threshold, demanding evidence requirements, and insufficient alignment with national objectives. Furthermore, resistance encountered within clinical units may have been attributable to limited stakeholder engagement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-14451-z
Primary Topic
Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Department managers’ perceptions of a priority-setting model in a local healthcare organisation: a mixed-methods study

Mio Fredriksson, Ul­rika Winblad, Lars Wallin, Inga-Britt Gustafsson
BMC Health Services Research
Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
article

Department managers’ perceptions of a priority-setting model in a local healthcare organisation: a mixed-methods study

Mio Fredriksson, Ul­rika Winblad, Lars Wallin, Inga-Britt Gustafsson
article en

Abstract

Priority-setting models have the potential to enhance transparency and support decision-making under conditions of resource scarcity; however, their practical application remains limited, particularly in large-scale decommissioning programmes. This article examines department managers’ perceptions of using a National Model for Transparent Prioritization (NMTP) at their clinics during the implementation of a decommissioning programme. In addition, the study explores whether the model contributes to fair priority setting and to procedural and substantive legitimacy. A convergent mixed-methods design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data from a survey (n = 33) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22). The analysis addressed six questions grouped into two overarching themes: (1) the model’s use and contribution (adoption, exclusion, and inclusion of care) and (2) the model’s legitimacy (acceptance, justification, and fairness of priorities). Department managers expressed varying perceptions of the NMTP. Approximately half of them considered the time and resources required to be justified and perceived that the model ensured patients with the greatest needs were given the highest priority. About one third agreed that the NMTP was accepted as a tool for prioritization and resource allocation, and a similar proportion reported that the NMTP had been used to exclude care that was previously provided. Department managers perceived that the NMTP facilitated the application of the Swedish ethical guidelines; however, they also identified several challenges associated with its use in the context of a large-scale decommissioning programme, including time constraints, a substantial initial threshold, demanding evidence requirements, and insufficient alignment with national objectives. Furthermore, resistance encountered within clinical units may have been attributable to limited stakeholder engagement.

BMC Health Services ResearchVol. 26(1)
Dalarna University (SE), Uppsala University (SE), Center for Clinical Research Dalarna (SE)
Uppsala Universitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.