A decision-support tool for funding health innovations at a tertiary academic medical center. (13th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cai, Yiying; Nazeha, Nuraini; Perera, Shamira; Thiery, Alexandre H.; Girard, Michaël J.A.; Lee, Chen E.; Hong, Weiwei; Graves, Nicholas
• Is Part Of: International journal of technology assessment in health care. Volume 39:Number 1(2023)
• Publication Date: 2023-02-13
• Subjects: healthcare systems -- healthcare evaluation -- health technology assessment; Medical technology -- Periodicals; Technology assessment -- Periodicals; 610.28
• DOI: 10.1017/S0266462323000028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0266-4623

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To report the processes used to design and implement an assessment tool to inform funding decisions for competing health innovations in a tertiary hospital. Methods: We designed an assessment tool for health innovation proposals with three components: "value to the institution, " "novelty, " and "potential for adoption and scaling." The "value to the institution" component consisted of twelve weighted value attributes identified from the host institution's annual report; weights were allocated based on a survey of the hospital's leaders. The second and third components consisted of open-ended questions on "novelty" and "barriers to implementation" to support further dialogue. Purposive literature review was performed independently by two researchers for each assessment. The assessment tool was piloted during an institutional health innovation funding cycle. Results: We used 17 days to evaluate ten proposals. The completed assessments were shared with an independent group of panellists, who selected five projects for funding. Proposals with the lowest scores for "value to the institution" had less perceived impact on the patient-related value attributes of "access, " "patient centeredness, " "health outcomes, " "prevention, " and "safety." Similar innovations were reported in literature in seven proposals; potential barriers to implementation were identified in six proposals. We included a worked example to illustrate the assessment process. Conclusions: We developed an assessment tool that is aligned with local institutional priorities. Our tool can augment the decision-making process when funding health innovation projects. The tool can be adapted by others facing similar challenges of trying to choose the best health innovations to fund.