Clinical governance, education and learning to manage health information

Purpose – This paper aims to suggest that the concept of clinical governance goes beyond a bureaucratic accountability structure and can be viewed as a negotiated balance between imperfectly aligned and sometimes conflicting goals within a complex adaptive system. On this view, the information system cannot be separated conceptually from the system of governance it supports or the people whose work it facilitates or hinders. Design/methodology/approach – The study, located within the English National Health Service (NHS) between 1999 and 2005, is case study based using a multi method approach to data collection within two primary care organisations (PCOs). The research strategy is conducted within a social constructionist ontological perspective. Findings – The findings reflect the following broad-based themes: mutual adjustment of a plurality of stakeholder perceptions, preferences and priorities; the development of information and communication systems, empowered by informatics; an emphasis on education and training to build capacity and capability. Research limitations/implications – Limitations of case study methodology include a tendency to provide selected accounts. These are potentially biased and risk trivialising findings. Rooted in specific context, their generalisability to other contexts is limited by the extent to which contexts are similar. Reasonable attempts were made to minimise any bias. The diversity of data collection methods used in the study was an attempt to counterbalance the limitations highlighted in one method by strength from alternative techniques. Practical implications – The paper makes recommendations in two key governance areas: education and learning to manage health information. In practice, the lessons learned provide opportunities to inform future approaches to health informatics educational programmes. Originality/value – With regard to topicality, it is suggested that many of the developmental issues highlighted during the establishment of quality improvement programmes within primary care organisations (PCGs/PCTs) are relevant in the light of current NHS reforms and move towards commissioning consortia

Discussing surgical innovation with patients: A qualitative study of surgeons’ and governance representatives’ views

Objectives Little is known about how innovative surgical procedures are introduced and discussed with patients. This qualitative study aimed to explore perspectives on information provision and consent prior to innovative surgical procedures.Design Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.Participants 42 interviews were conducted (26 surgeons and 16 governance representatives).Setting Surgeons and governance representatives recruited from various surgical specialties and National Health Service (NHS) Trusts across England, UK.Results Participants stated that if a procedure was innovative, patients should be provided with additional information extending beyond that given during routine surgical consultations. However, difficulty defining innovation had implications for whether patients were informed about novel components of surgery and how the procedure was introduced (ie, as part of a research study, trust approval or in routine clinical practice). Furthermore, data suggest surgeons found it difficult to establish what information is essential and how much detail is sufficient, and governance surrounding written and verbal information provision differed between NHS Trusts. Generally, surgeons believed patients held a view that ‘new’ was best and reported that managing these expectations could be difficult, particularly if patient views aligned with their own.Conclusions This study highlights the challenges of information provision and obtaining informed consent in the context of innovative surgery, including establishing if and how a procedure is truly innovative, determining the key information to discuss with patients, ensuring information provision is objective and balanced, and managing patient expectations and preferences. This suggests that surgeons may require support and training to discuss novel procedures with patients. Further work should capture consultations where new procedures are discussed with patients and patients’ views of these information exchanges

Accountability for health: a scoping paper for the LGA health commission

This paper for the Local Government Association Health Commission aims to scope the main issues surrounding the accountability of health services in England in the context of the Commission’s terms of reference. These require the Commission to consider, against a background of what is referred to as a ‘new consensus’ about localism, how local councils might work best with National Health Service and other partners to engage local people in decision-making and empower them to hold the health care commissioning and delivery system to account. In this paper, the authors seek to clarify the different ways in which accountability has been understood and expressed in relation to the NHS, and to offer a framework for assessing both current mechanisms and new proposals

The NPFIT strategy for information security of care record service

The National Programme for IT in England doesn’t have a one-document strategy for its information security of the Care Records Service, which is the national EHR system. This paper provides a comprehensive understanding of the information security strategy of England’s EHR system by presenting its different information security issues such as consent mechanisms, access control, sharing level, and related legal and regulations documents

Devolved governance systems

This article assesses the extent, nature and outcomes of the recently devolved health service governance in the four countries which comprise the United Kingdom. This four-part configuration can be seen as a natural experiment in comparative governance which could therefore carry important lessons not only for the UK but in other countries too. While remaining under the aegis of the National Health Service, each constituent devolved administration has a developed a substantially different governance system. These systems reflect fundamental issues and priorities concerning the decentring of authority, the production and deployment of authority, the suite of incentives required and the preferred role of quasi-market mechanisms. The paper makes an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each governance regime

Partnership, ownership and control: the impact of corporate governance on employment relations

Prevailing patterns of dispersed share ownership and rules of corporate governance for UK listed companies appear to constrain the ability of managers to make credible, long-term commitments to employees of the kind needed to foster effective labour-management partnerships. We present case study evidence which suggests that such partnerships can nevertheless emerge where product market conditions and the regulatory environment favour a stakeholder orientation. Proactive and mature partnerships may also be sustained where the board takes a strategic approach to mediating between the claims of different stakeholder groups, institutional investors are prepared to take a long-term view of their holdings, and strong and independent trade unions are in a position to facilitate organisational change

Organisational culture and quality of health care

concerned with assessing and improving the quality of health care. The USA, in particular, has identified specific concerns over quality issues1 2 and a recent report from the Institute of Medicine pointed to the considerable toll of medical errors.3 In the UK a series of scandals has propelled quality issues to centre stage4 5 and made quality improvement a key policy area.6 But how are quality improvements to be wrought in such a complex system as health care? A recent issue of Quality in Health Care was devoted to considerations of organisational change in health care, calling it “the key to quality improvement”.7 In discussing how such change can be managed, the authors of one of the articles asserted that cultural change needs to be wrought alongside structural reorganisation and systems reform to bring about “a culture in which excellence can flourish”.8 A review of policy changes in the UK over the past two decades shows that these appeals for cultural change are not new but have appeared in various guises (box 1). However, talk of “culture” and “culture change” beg some diffi- cult questions about the nature of the underlying substrate to which change programmes are applied. What is “organisational culture” anyway? It is to this issue that this paper is addressed