This is acknowledged by the 'Accountability for Reasonableness' (A4R) framework [ 2, 3] which is based on the believe that any consensus on priority setting weights and subsequent results may be difficult to achieve because of these distinct perspectives of stakeholders.
Fairness ratings were also positively correlated with each of the 4 'accountability for reasonableness' conditions (p <.01), as were meeting priority setting goals (p <.05).
Norman Daniels and James Sabin have developed a fair process model for priority setting called 'accountability for reasonableness' (A4R) [ 16].
Consideration of these often conflicting principles requires pragmatic frameworks and the engagement of a broad range of stakeholders to provide accountability for reasonableness (A4R) [ 3- 7].
This is necessary to fulfill the relevance condition of the accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework of Daniels and Sabin [ 6], which states that "Decisions should be made on the basis of reasons (i.e. evidence, principles, values, arguments) that 'fair-minded' stakeholders can agree are relevant under the circumstances".
Median bed occupancy during the study period Jan-April 20033) was 18/18; daily admissions and discharges (median) were 3. We evaluated our description using the ethical framework "accountability for reasonableness" (A4R) to identify opportunities for improvement.
Daniels and Sabin created 'accountability for reasonableness' (A4R) with legitimacy and fairness as two key goals of priority setting [ 10].
The tool could be used as part of the integrated MCDA and accountability for reasonableness (A4R) approach for priority setting, recently proposed by Baltussen et al. [ 16].
One framework which has gained some attention in recent years is 'Accountability for Reasonableness' [ 13, 14].
It constitutes a concrete step towards addressing some of the elements identified as key to successful decisionmaking [ 42] and for accountability for reasonableness [ 22].
