UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency'


Strech, Daniel; Danis, Marion (2014). How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for 'benchmarks of efficiency'. Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(2):89-93.

Abstract

Imperfect efficiency in healthcare delivery is sometimes given as a justification for refusing to ration or even discuss how to pursue fair rationing. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between inefficiency and rationing, and the conditions under which bedside rationing can be justified despite coexisting inefficiency. This paper first clarifies several assumptions that underlie the classification of a clinical practice as being inefficient. We then suggest that rationing is difficult to justify in circumstances where the rationing agent is or should be aware of and contributes to clinical inefficiency. We further explain the different ethical implications of this suggestion for rationing decisions made by clinicians. We argue that rationing is more legitimate when sufficient efforts are undertaken to decrease inefficiency in parallel with efforts to pursue unavoidable but fair rationing. While the qualifier ‘sufficient’ is crucial here, we explain why ‘sufficient efforts’ should be translated into ‘benchmarks of efficiency’ that address specific healthcare activities where clinical inefficiency can be decreased. Referring to recent consensus papers, we consider some examples of specific clinical situations where improving clinical inefficiency has been recommended and consider how benchmarks for efficiency might apply. These benchmarks should state explicitly how much inefficiency shall be reduced in a reasonable time range and why these efforts are ‘sufficient’. Possible strategies for adherence to benchmarks are offered to address the possibility of non-compliance.

Imperfect efficiency in healthcare delivery is sometimes given as a justification for refusing to ration or even discuss how to pursue fair rationing. This paper aims to clarify the relationship between inefficiency and rationing, and the conditions under which bedside rationing can be justified despite coexisting inefficiency. This paper first clarifies several assumptions that underlie the classification of a clinical practice as being inefficient. We then suggest that rationing is difficult to justify in circumstances where the rationing agent is or should be aware of and contributes to clinical inefficiency. We further explain the different ethical implications of this suggestion for rationing decisions made by clinicians. We argue that rationing is more legitimate when sufficient efforts are undertaken to decrease inefficiency in parallel with efforts to pursue unavoidable but fair rationing. While the qualifier ‘sufficient’ is crucial here, we explain why ‘sufficient efforts’ should be translated into ‘benchmarks of efficiency’ that address specific healthcare activities where clinical inefficiency can be decreased. Referring to recent consensus papers, we consider some examples of specific clinical situations where improving clinical inefficiency has been recommended and consider how benchmarks for efficiency might apply. These benchmarks should state explicitly how much inefficiency shall be reduced in a reasonable time range and why these efforts are ‘sufficient’. Possible strategies for adherence to benchmarks are offered to address the possibility of non-compliance.

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 30 Oct 2013
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:30 Oct 2013 09:48
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 16:23
Publisher:BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:0306-6800
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100769
Permanent URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-71614

Download

[img]
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 102kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations