Supporting and activating clinical governance development in Ireland: sharing our learning

Governance of maternity services: Effects on the management of perinatal deaths and bereavement services

BACKGROUND

External inquiries are carried out following adverse maternal/perinatal events, to examine the care provided and make recommendations to improve it. Clinical governance ensures that organisations promote high-quality care and are accountable for the care they provide, thus contributing to its improvement.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined how Irish perinatal bereavement services and the management of perinatal deaths (including events leading up to the deaths) were affected by developments in maternity services governance as described in ten Irish enquiry reports published over 14 years (2005-18).

METHODS

Two clinicians collected data from the ten enquiry reports by using a specifically designed review tool. Thematic analysis was carried out, following the steps of familiarising, coding, identifying, grouping and revising themes.

FINDINGS

Seven main themes were identified: workforce, leadership, management of risk, work environment, hospital oversight, national documents, data collection. Eight reports noted shortcomings in staffing levels, with a workforce that was under-resourced, and at times carried excessive workloads. The absence of 24/7 midwifery-shift leaders in maternity units resulted in problems with care at times not being escalated appropriately. The absence of a widely-owned, understood strategic plan for the management of the maternity services was mentioned in the reports from 2013. Conclusions and implications for practice The National Bereavement Care Standards were published in 2016 to address deficiencies identified in the enquiry reports and to standardise perinatal bereavement care across Irish maternity units. Though the first Irish Maternity Strategy (2016-26) was published in 2016, its implementation is incomplete. Inconsistencies remain in the definition and collection of national perinatal data, as well as concerns regarding the lack of local audit activities on pregnancy outcomes. Greater focus on hospital oversight, implementation of national documents and reliable data collection is required. To be effective and initiate positive changes in clinical services, documents such as incident reviews, national strategies and national reports including inquiries, need to include realistic recommendations with clear timelines and responsibilities for implementation.

Mapping clinical governance to practitioner roles and responsibilities

Purpose

While clinical governance is assumed to be part of organisational structures and policies, implementation of clinical governance in practice (the praxis) can be markedly different. This paper draws on insights from hospital clinicians, managers and governors on how they interpret the term “clinical governance”. The influence of best-practice and roles and responsibilities on their interpretations is considered.

Design/methodology/approach

The research is based on 40 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with hospital clinicians, managers and governors from two large academic hospitals in Ireland. The analytical lens for the research is practice theory. Interview transcripts are analysed for practitioners' spoken keywords/terms to explore how practitioners interpret the term “clinical governance”. The practice of clinical governance is mapped to front line, management and governance roles and responsibilities.

Findings

The research finds that interpretation of clinical governance in praxis is quite different from best-practice definitions. Practitioner roles and responsibilities held influence practitioners' interpretation.

Originality/value

The research examines interpretations of clinical governance in praxis by clinicians, managers and governors and highlights the adverse consequence of the absence of clear mapping of roles and responsibilities to clinical, management and governance practice.

Has the clinical governance development agenda stalled? Perceptions of New Zealand medical professionals in 2012 and 2017

Clinical governance is a key policy and organisational foundation for health care quality improvement. This study sought to measure progress with clinical governance development from the perspective of practicing medical professionals in the New Zealand public health system. A short fixed-response survey, with questions derived from a government policy statement, was sent in 2012 and 2017 to all registered medical professionals in ongoing employment in New Zealand's public health system. Respondents, therefore, worked across New Zealand's 20 District Health Boards (DHBs), which own and manage public hospital and health care services. The survey sought to gauge medical professionals' perspectives around performance on, and implementation of, key clinical governance components. The overall performance in clinical governance development declined or stalled between the two survey periods across eight out of 10 key survey questions. There were improvements on two questions relating to respondent familiarity with clinical governance concepts, and to management support for clinical leadership development, but no change in areas such as having a structure to support clinical governance, or working in partnership with management. Limited government and DHB policy attention to clinical governance may well have contributed to stalled development across the New Zealand health system. If so, this finding has lessons for other countries and health systems in which there has been varying government support for the clinical governance agenda with ramifications around expectations for clinical leadership on, and involvement in, quality improvement.

Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

Our goal is to conceptualise a clinical governance framework for the effective management of chronic diseases in the primary care setting, which will facilitate a reorganisation of healthcare services that systematically improves their performance.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Chronic Care Model by Wagner et aland Clinical Governance statement by Scally et alwere taken for reference. Each was reviewed, including their various components. We then conceptualised a new framework, merging the relevant aspects of both.

INTERVENTIONS

We conducted an umbrella review of all systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group to identify organisational interventions in primary care with demonstrated evidence of efficacy.

RESULTS

All primary healthcare systems should be patient-centred. Interventions for patients and their families should focus on their values; on clinical, professional and institutional integration and finally on accountability to patients, peers and society at large. These interventions should be shaped by an approach to their clinical management that achieves the best clinical governance, which includes quality assurance, risk management, technology assessment, management of patient satisfaction and patient empowerment and engagement. This approach demands the implementation of a system of organisational, functional and professional management based on a population health needs assessment, resource management, evidence-based and patient-oriented research, professional education, team building and information and communication technologies that support the delivery system. All primary care should be embedded in and founded on an active partnership with the society it serves.

CONCLUSIONS

A framework for clinical governance will promote an integrated effort to bring together all related activities, melding environmental, administrative, support and clinical elements to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach that sustains the provision of better care for chronic conditions in primary care setting.

Do different approaches to clinical governance development and implementation make a difference? Findings from Ireland and New Zealand

Purpose

Clinical governance (CG) is an important foundation for a high-performing health care system, with many countries supporting its development. CG policy may be developed and implemented nationally, or devolved to a local level, with implications for the overall approach to implementation and policy uptake. However, it is not known whether one of these two approaches is more effective. The purpose of this paper is to probe this question. Its setting is Ireland and New Zealand, two broadly comparable countries with similar CG policies. Ireland’s was nationally led, while New Zealand’s was devolved to local districts. This leads to the question of whether these different approaches to implementation make a difference.

Design/methodology/approach

Data from surveys of health professionals in both countries were used to compare performance with CG development.

Findings

The study showed that Ireland’s approach produced a slightly better performance, raising questions about the merits of devolving responsibility for policy implementation to the local level.

Research limitations/implications

The Irish and New Zealand surveys both had lower-than-desirable response rates, which is not uncommon for studies of health professionals such as this. The low response rates mean the findings may be subject to selection bias.

Originality/value

Despite the importance of the question of whether a national or local approach to policy implementation is more effective, few studies specifically focus on this, meaning that this study provides a new contribution to the topic.

Rethinking clinical governance: healthcare professionals' views: a Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Although the guiding principle of clinical governance states that healthcare professionals are the leading contributors to quality and safety in healthcare, little is known about what healthcare professionals perceive as important for clinical governance. The aim of this study is to clarify this by exploring healthcare professionals' views on clinical governance.

DESIGN

Based on a literature search, a list of 99 elements related to clinical governance was constructed. This list was refined, extended and restricted during a three-round Delphi study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The panel of experts was formed of 24 healthcare professionals from an academic hospital that is seen as a leader in terms of its clinical governance expertise in the Netherlands.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rated importance of each element on a four-point scale.

RESULTS

The 50 elements that the panel perceived as most important related to adopting a bottom-up approach to clinical governance, ownership, teamwork, learning from mistakes and feedback. The panel did not reach a consensus concerning elements that referred to patient involvement. Elements that referred to a managerial approach to clinical governance and standardisation of work were rejected by the panel.

CONCLUSIONS

In the views of the panel of experts, clinical governance is a practice-based, value-driven approach that has the goal of delivering the highest possible quality care and ensuring the safety of patients. Bottom-up approaches and effective teamwork are seen as crucial for high quality and safe healthcare. Striving for high quality and safe healthcare is underpinned by continuous learning, shared responsibility and good relationships and collaboration between healthcare professionals, managers and patients.

Implementing a new governance model

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss the lessons learnt from the process of implementing a new model of governance within Living Well, a New Zealand statutory mental health agency. Design/methodology/approach - It presents the findings from an organisational case study that involved qualitative interviews, meeting observations and document analysis. Archetype theory provided the analytical framework for the research enabling an analysis of both the formal structures and informal value systems that influenced the implementation of the governance model. Findings - The research found that the move to a new governance model did not proceed as planned. It highlighted the importance of staff commitment, the complexity of adopting a new philosophical approach and the undue influence of key personalities as key determining factors in the implementation process. The findings suggest that planners and managers within statutory mental health agencies need to consider the implications of any proposed governance change on existing roles and relationships, thinking strategically about how to secure professional commitment to change. Practical implications - There are ongoing pressures within statutory mental health agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of organisational structures and systems. This paper has implications for how planners and managers think about the process of implementing new governance models within the statutory mental health environment in order to increase the likelihood of sustaining and embedding new approaches to service delivery. Originality/value - The paper presents insights into the process of implementing new governance models within a statutory mental health agency in New Zealand that has relevance for other jurisdictions.