the group was influenced by the strong international con- sensus on optimal diabetes care.
“Several times people used the old phrase ‘there’s no point in reinventing the wheel’. Things that are important in Scotland or Denmark are likely to be important in Ireland. So our set of priorities and indeed our standards for diabetes care would have been modelled on the UK equivalent, probably dressed up a little bit in the Irish context ...”
Deciding which priorities to tackle first was largely driven by the likelihood of success. Hence, the need for a national retinopathy screening programme was to the forefront of the agenda; it was not “the number one pri- ority, it was the number one chance of success”. Table 2 outlines why retinopathy screening was considered a “quick win” proposal, in line with the criteria for survival in the policy stream: technical feasibility, alignment with dominant values, and acceptability in light of future con- straints. The feasibility and acceptability of implement- ing a national screening programme was considered in detail in a dedicated framework document outlining the structure, manpower requirements, governance, and procurement.
In contrast, developing recommendations for a national model of care that would be acceptable to different profes- sions and applicable in different regions was described as “the poisoned chalice” of the process. Participants referred to a historical “tug of war” between primary and secondary care over the management of diabetes and competition for limited resources, which led to “entrenched positions” on the ideal care arrangement. The development of pro- posals for an integrated model of care illustrated the
process of diffusion and acceptance within the policy stream as participants referred to the gradual realization that “it really was impossible for either service to look after Type 2 diabetes alone”.
Given the different ways services were organised around Ireland, “there was this kind of fudge that we needed to organise” so that the model could take account of local capacity and acceptability. In keeping with the concept of repackaged policy ideas, the established models of shared and structured care were repackaged as ‘integrated care’. The evolution of recommendations represented the emer- gence of consensus rather than complete agreement as some participants expressed doubt about the technical feasibility of implementing the model of care.