Factors affecting procurement of wound care products: a qualitative study of hospital managers and clinicians’ views
Elizabeth McInnes A B F , Gill Harvey C , Janet E. Hiller D E , Rosemary Phillips B , Tamara Page C and Rick Wiechula CA Nursing Research Institute – St Vincent’s Health Australia Sydney, St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne and Australian Catholic University, Daniel Mannix Building, Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Vic 3000, Australia.
B School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Daniel Mannix Building, Brunswick Street, Fitzroy, Vic 3000, Australia. Email: Rosemary.Phillips@acu.edu.au
C Adelaide Nursing School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Building, Corner of North Terrace and George Street, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia. Email: gillian.harvey@adelaide.edu.au; tamara.page@adelaide.edu.au; rick.wiechula@adelaide.edu.au
D Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, School of Health Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, Vic 3122, Australia. Email: jhiller@swin.edu.au
E School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, 57 North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia.
F Corresponding author. Email: liz.mcinnes@acu.edu.au
Australian Health Review - https://doi.org/10.1071/AH19250
Submitted: 8 November 2019 Accepted: 28 May 2020 Published online: 8 October 2020
Abstract
Objective To identify factors that influence procurement and disinvestment decisions for wound care products in the acute care setting.
Methods A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. Eighteen face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled senior clinical and non-clinical managers from three Australian acute care hospitals with responsibility for consumables procurement and disinvestment decisions. Data were coded and analysed thematically.
Results Three main themes (Systems and triggers, Evidence-free zone, Getting the governance right) with sub-themes were identified that reflect that: (1) procurement processes were often ad hoc and workarounds common. Disinvestment was poorly understood and opportunities were missed to reduce use of low value products ; (2) product selection was commonly based on clinician preference, contractual obligations and information from industry representatives; and (3) improved evidence-based governance and processes are needed to connect procurement and disinvestment decisions and to minimise the influences of clinician preference and industry representatives on product selection.
Conclusions Systematic and evidence-based approaches are needed to strengthen procurement and disinvestment decisions related to consumables such as wound care products and to minimise the purchasing of low-value products Decision-making frameworks should consider cost and clinical effectiveness and enable the identification of opportunities to disinvest from low-value products.
What is known about the topic? High volume–low unit cost healthcare consumables such as wound care products are a major component of healthcare expenditure. Disinvestment from low-value wound care products has potential to improve patient outcomes and optimise health resources.
What does this paper add? Disinvestment was poorly understood and considered in isolation from procurement decisions. Procurement decisions were rarely informed by research evidence, with clinicians exercising considerable freedom to make purchasing decisions based on product preference and industry information. Frameworks and guidelines are needed to guide procurement and disinvestment decision-making for wound care products.
What are the implications for practitioners? New models for procurement and disinvestment decision-making for wound care products could help to strengthen decision-making processes, facilitate evidence-based product choices and also prompt consideration of removal of low-value products.
References
[1] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s hospitals 2016–17 at a glance. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018.[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2016–17. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2018.
[3] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2019 National Health Expenditure Data. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2019. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/highlights.pdf [verified 18 September 2020].
[4] Ford G, Lewis J, Cooper, J. UK Health Accounts: 2016 - expenditure statistics, produced to the international definitions of the System of Health Accounts 2011. Cardiff: Office for National Statistics; 2018. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthcaresystem/bulletins/ukhealthaccounts/2016 [verified 17 September 2020].
[5] Niven DJ, Mrklas KJ, Holodinsky JK, Straus S, Hemmelgarn B, Jeffs L, Stelfox H. Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med 2015; 13 255
| Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26444862PubMed |
[6] Soon J, Buchbinder R, Close J, Hill C, Allan S, Turnour C. Identifying low-value care: the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ EVOLVE initiative. Med J Aust 2016; 204 180–1.
| Identifying low-value care: the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ EVOLVE initiative.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26985841PubMed |
[7] Harris C, Allen K, King R, Ramsey W, Kelly C, Thiagarajan M. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 328
| Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 2: identifying opportunities for disinvestment in a local healthcare setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28476159PubMed |
[8] Soril LJ, Seixas BV, Mitton C, Bryan S, Clement F. Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18 640
| Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30111308PubMed |
[9] National Audit Office. The procurement of consumables by NHS acute and Foundation trusts. London: National Audit Office; 2011. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/1011705.pdf [verified 20 February 2019].
[10] South Australia Health. SA Health’s response to the hospital budget performance and remediation reviews. Adelaide: SA Health; 2012. Available at: https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/about+us/our+local+health+networks/sa+healths+response+to+the+hospital+budget+performance+and+remediation+reviews [verified 20 February 2019].
[11] Graves N, Zheng H. Modelling the direct health care costs of chronic wounds in Australia. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Association 2014; 22 163–8.
[12] Gray TA, Rhodes S, Atkinson RA, Rothwell K, Wilson P, Dumville J, Cullum N. Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population. BMJ Open 2018; 8 e019440
| Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29572395PubMed |
[13] McCosker L, Tulleners R, Cheng Q, Rohmer S, Pacella T, Graves N, Pacella R. Chronic wounds in Australia: a systematic review of key epidemiological and clinical parameters. Int Wound J 2019; 16 84–95.
| Chronic wounds in Australia: a systematic review of key epidemiological and clinical parameters.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30259680PubMed |
[14] Guest JF, Ayoub N, McIlwraith T, Uchegbu I, Gerrish A, Weidlich D, Vowden K, Vowden P. Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK. BMJ Open 2015; 5 e009283
| Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26644123PubMed |
[15] Nussbaum SR, Carter MJ, Fife CE, DeVanzo J, Haught R, Nusgart M, Cartwright D. An economic evaluation of the impact, cost, and Medicare policy implications of chronic nonhealing wounds. Value Health 2018; 21 27–32.
| An economic evaluation of the impact, cost, and Medicare policy implications of chronic nonhealing wounds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29304937PubMed |
[16] Brölmann FE, Ubbink DT, Nelson E, Munte K, van der Horst CMAM, Vermeulen H. Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care. Br J Surg 2012; 99 1172–83.
| Evidence-based decisions for local and systemic wound care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22777856PubMed |
[17] Gillespie B, Chaboyer W, Nieuwenhoven P, Rickard C. Drivers and barriers of surgical wound management in a large health care organisation: results of an environmental scan. Wound Practice & Research: Journal of the Australian Wound Management Associatio 2012; 20 90
[18] Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, Sondergaard J. Qualitative description–the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9 52
| Qualitative description–the poor cousin of health research?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19607668PubMed |
[19] Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52 1893–907.
| Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29937585PubMed |
[20] Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2002.
[21] Day RT, Norman R, Robinson S. Challenges and opportunities for disinvestment in Australia: a need to evaluate the implementation and impact of choosing Wisely in Australia. J Health Organ Manag 2016; 30 1301–7.
| Challenges and opportunities for disinvestment in Australia: a need to evaluate the implementation and impact of choosing Wisely in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27834600PubMed |
[22] Gnjidic D, Elshaug AG. De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology. BMC Med 2015; 13 273
| De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26486727PubMed |
[23] Rooshenas L, Owen-Smith A, Hollingworth W, Badrinath P, Beynon C, Donovan J. “I won’t call it rationing…”: an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice. Soc Sci Med 2015; 128 273–81.
| “I won’t call it rationing…”: an ethnographic study of healthcare disinvestment in theory and practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25635374PubMed |
[24] Fabbri A, Grundy Q, Mintzes B, Swandari S, Moynihan R, Walkom E, Bero L. A cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia. BMJ Open 2017; 7 e016701
| A cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28965094PubMed |
[25] Grundy Q, Bero L, Malone R. Interactions between non-physician clinicians and industry: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2013; 10 e1001561
| Interactions between non-physician clinicians and industry: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24302892PubMed |
[26] Madden M. Alienating evidence based medicine vs. innovative medical device marketing: a report on the evidence debate at a Wounds conference. Soc Sci Med 2012; 74 2046–52.
| Alienating evidence based medicine vs. innovative medical device marketing: a report on the evidence debate at a Wounds conference.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22480873PubMed |
[27] Dean J, Loh E, Coleman JJ. Pharmaceutical industry exposure in our hospitals: the final frontier. Med J Aust 2016; 204 20–2.
| Pharmaceutical industry exposure in our hospitals: the final frontier.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26763810PubMed |
[28] Harris C, Allen K, Waller C, Brooke V. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 340
| Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 3: examining how resource allocation decisions are made, implemented and evaluated in a local healthcare setting.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28486953PubMed |
[29] Shepperd S, Adams R, Hill A, Garner S, Dopson S. Challenges to using evidence from systematic reviews to stop ineffective practice: an interview study. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18 160–6.
| Challenges to using evidence from systematic reviews to stop ineffective practice: an interview study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23780827PubMed |
[30] Harris C, Green S, Elshaug AG. Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17 632
| Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28886740PubMed |
[31] Grundy Q. “Whether something cool is good enough”: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses’ expertise in hospital purchasing decisions. Soc Sci Med 2016; 165 82–91.
| “Whether something cool is good enough”: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses’ expertise in hospital purchasing decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27497859PubMed |
[32] Miller FA, Lehoux P, Peacock S, Rac VE, Neukomm J, Barg C, Bytautas J, Krahn M. How procurement judges the value of medical technologies: a review of healthcare tenders. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2019; 35 50–5.
| How procurement judges the value of medical technologies: a review of healthcare tenders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30732667PubMed |
[33] Lockyer S, Hodgson R, Dumville JC. “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes. Trials 2013; 14 371
| “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24195770PubMed |
