Search

A framework for decision-making is introduced in which two out of five patients will be denied treatment. Certain resource constraints are accepted in this hypothetical example. The authors' own ranking of five patients from a department of internal medicine are presented. It was not difficult to select the highest prioritized patients. However, ranking of the remaining patients revealed considerable controversy. Emphasis is therefore laid on the reasons given for each ranking. An interesting finding is that variations in awarding priority to some cases are clearly based on disagreement about facts, not values. The article concludes by suggesting a classification of selection criteria for priority setting based on a distinction between necessary, controversial and unacceptable criteria. The article is presented in an attempt to stimulate a debate about priority setting in everyday hospital work.

In 1990, 70 Norwegian hospitals were mailed a questionnaire asking about quality assurance (QA) activities in the departments of internal medicine, surgery, gynaecology/obstetrics and pediatrics. Responses from 173 departments at 58 hospitals showed a marked interest in improving quality and quality assurance. However, few departments had implemented QA to any noticeable extent in their clinical practices. There were few differences between surgical and non-surgical departments. Only 30% of the respondents had established routines aimed at ensuring complete medical records. 47% had not established committees to record and evaluate accidents, or report hazards to patients, in spite of the fact that only 5% assumed QA was of little usefulness. In 1990, little time was spent on specific QA activities; the most common estimate was one hour per week. In our estimate, full QA in clinical department would require 2-5% of the total contribution of work.