Search results

Brand equity of hospitals is built on patient care service quality. Through the testing of the hypotheses on the relationships between brand equity and its precursors, the purpose of this paper is to examine if clinical governance effectiveness is driven by corporate social responsibility (CSR), and if clinical governance effectiveness influences patient care service quality which in turn influences brand equity.

In total, 417 responses in completed form returned from self-administered structured questionnaires relayed to 835 clinical staff members underwent the structural equation modeling-based analysis.

CSR, as the data divulges, is a strong predictor of clinical governance effectiveness which yields high patient care quality and brand equity of the hospital.

The expedition to test research hypotheses constructed layer by layer of CSR-based model of hospital brand equity in which high levels of CSR among clinical members in the hospital activates clinical governance mechanism, without which, initiatives to improve patient care service quality may not be successfully implemented to augment brand equity of Vietnam-based hospitals.

This paper attempts to define quality (particularly in terms of evidence‐based health care) and considers the incentives available to bring about improvements in quality. It examines the contribution that economics, as a discipline, can make to the debate on clinical governance. It considers the nature and importance of clinical governance, measuring quality, objectives and behaviour in questions raised concerning objectives and individual and team behaviour.

Clinical governance was introduced in 1997 as a comprehensive framework to improve the healthcare quality in the National Health Service. Since then, the proliferation of various definitions and models of clinical governance illustrates that different perceptions are emerging on clinical governance. However, none of these definitions captures the essence of clinical governance in terms of its organisation‐wide implications for continuous quality improvement. Although there is discrete mention of structure, process and outcomes in the literature on clinical governance, it is hard to find any clear explanation on how clinical governance influences organisational elements. This paper therefore analyses clinical governance in terms of the inputs, processes, structure and the outcomes of healthcare organisations. The fact that the introduction of any new governance framework will have much wider implications for the management of healthcare organisations is illustrated through a refined definition of clinical governance presented in this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the path that the Irish health system has taken towards achieving good clinical governance, exploring the historical influences on its’ development, some of the major initiatives that have been implemented and the obstacles that have been encountered.

The paper draws on the author's experience researching and teaching in health systems and healthcare management.

The paper offers some explanations for why earlier attempts failed to change the system as well as why recent attempts have met with more success. Greater efforts need to be made to progress clinical governance in the primary care services. In addition it is argued that there is a need to institute systems that enable learning form errors, to involve the public and patient groups and to invest in research that enables answers to the how and why questions that are so often neglected in the reform process.

The paper discusses clinical governance in the Irish Health system and identifies some of the challenges yet to be addressed, many of which are common to clinical governance efforts in other jurisdictions.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the current debate on the implementation of clinical governance by exploring the understanding of clinical governance at different levels in an NHS organisation.

A case study method has been adopted with in‐depth interviews to understand how organisational actors make sense of the term “clinical governance”. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a heterogeneous group of 33 persons in an NHS hospital trust handling important responsibilities for clinical governance. In‐depth analysis of the data revealed the understanding of clinical governance at different levels in an NHS organisation.

The results indicate that clinical governance creates more confusion, debate and disagreement on quality of care, making it more a contentious issue than one promoting unanimity, uniformity and consistency. This could become a major obstacle in achieving continuous quality improvement in healthcare.

Further research on a wider scale is required to develop a better understanding of how people make sense of clinical governance for improving the quality of care.

To look into implications of clinical governance in NHS organisations, it is necessary to understand how people at different levels in the NHS understand clinical governance. The paper makes a valuable contribution by bringing out the practical implications which will be useful for policy makers and practitioners. A better understanding of how health staff make sense of clinical governance would enable policy makers to know the problems of implementing clinical governance.

From the current literature very little information is available on the above topic. This empirical research makes a valuable contribution by focusing on how stakeholders at different levels in an NHS organisation make sense of clinical governance.

The purpose of this article is to reflect on and share learning during reviewing and improving one primary care trust's clinical effectiveness department quality assurance model. It is recognized that the existing model focused on quality guideline production whilst implementation was almost unaddressed further than dissemination.

An analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the current strategy was conducted to identify the main issues followed by in‐depth consideration and application of a new QA model.

The case study reveals weaknesses in the existing QA model and potential improvements when a new QA model such as the European Foundation for Quality Management is applied – ensuring an outcome‐based QA method.

This article will be valuable to individuals interested in proposing, developing, ratifying and disseminating clinical guidelines with the intention of improving clinical outcomes.

This article explores professional self‐regulation in the context of clinical governance. It begins by explaining clinical governance’s origins before setting out a framework in which the Department of Health expects managers and practitioners to work. Description, analysis and synthesis of professional self‐regulation issues, operating within a clinical governance framework, are greatly enhanced by comment drawn from the theoretical and empirical literature.

This article from the NHS Clinical Governance Support Team (NCGST) outlines the development of quality concerns since the NHS was founded in 1948. It traces the development of clinical governance as a means of achieving continuous quality improvement and describes what the implementation of clinical governance means for patients and professionals. It analyses features of the cultural shift necessary to underpin quality improvement initiatives and describes with practical examples the constituents of the culture necessary for successful clinical governance. Future articles in this series will address other issues around clinical governance and will explain the model being followed by delegates to the NCGST’s Clinical Governance Development Programme as they implement clinical governance “on the ground”.

Clinical governance is a new policy introduced by the UK government to improve quality of care in the National Health Service; it imposes a “duty of quality” on all NHS organisations, and aims to bring together managerial, organisational and clinical approaches to improving quality of care. Infrastructures have been established to support quality improvement in NHS organisations and priorities for quality improvement have been established. Initial approaches are largely educational. However, information on quality of care is starting to be shared, and experiments are being conducted with a range of financial and contractual incentives for quality improvement. For widespread cultural change to occur, a “no blame” approach to quality improvement will be necessary; this may be incompatible with the need to identify and eliminate bad practice. Other tensions include the rapid pace of change being centrally driven and uneven development of the infrastructure to support clinical governance. What has not yet been shown is that quality of care has improved. It is too early to say this yet. Given the magnitude both of the vision and the work required, it is unlikely that change will be rapid, or seen on a widespread scale.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate a service quality framework that enhances service delivery in clinical laboratories by gauging medical practitioner satisfaction and by providing avenues for continuous improvement.

The case study method has been used for conducting the exploratory study, with focus on the Mauritian public clinical laboratory. A structured questionnaire based on the SERVQUAL service quality model was used for data collection, analysis and for the development of the service quality framework.

The study confirms the pertinence of the following service quality dimensions within the context of clinical laboratories: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, turnaround time, technology, test reports, communication and laboratory staff attitude and behaviour.

The service quality framework developed, termed LabSERV, is vital for clinical laboratories in the search for improving service delivery to medical practitioners.

This is a pioneering work carried out in the clinical laboratory sector in Mauritius. Medical practitioner expectations and perceptions have been simultaneously considered to generate a novel service quality framework for clinical laboratories.