Search results

In 1989, a programme of clinical audit was introduced throughout the UK National Health Service (NHS), in an attempt to improve care through the application of quality methodology to clinical issues. However, the role of clinical audit in the new NHS “internal market” is unclear. Reviews evidence on the development of audit and concludes that it has operated largely in isolation, under professional control. Central policy is now advocating greater purchaser and provider management involvement in audit, enabling feedback from and to service provision and management decisions. Where there are constructive local relationships the opening up of audit should be beneficial, but these do not always exist. Discusses a range of models for the interaction of clinical audit with wider NHS management systems. Recommends a split system of professionally controlled background audit and collaborative shared audits to balance conflicting goals.

Introducing change is a difficult issue facing all health care systems. The use of various clinical governance levers can facilitate change in health care systems. The purpose of this paper is to define clinical governance levers, and to illustrate their use in a large-scale transformation.

The empirical analysis deals with the in-depth study of a specific case, which is the organizational model for Ontario’s cancer sector. The authors used a qualitative research strategy and drew the data from three sources: semi-structured interviews, analysis of documents, and non-participative observations.

From the results, the authors identified three phases and several steps in the reform of cancer services in this province. The authors conclude that a combination of clinical governance levers was used to transform the system. These levers operated at different levels of the system to meet the targeted objectives.

To exercise clinical governance, managers need to acquire new competencies. Mobilizing clinical governance levers requires in-depth understanding of the role and scope of clinical governance levers.

This study provides a better understanding of clinical governance levers. Clinical governance levers are used to implement an organizational environment that is conducive to developing clinical practice, as well as to act directly on practices to improve quality of care.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed for many years with the aim of improving the quality of care. A review of the use of CPGs and assessments of CPG compliance among practitioners so far would aid the understanding of factors influencing CPG compliance. This study seeks to provide this.

A general review and discussion of CPGs in areas of their attributes, benefits and pitfalls were carried out. Articles concerning the assessment of CPG compliance were also reviewed to understand the kind of data collected for such assessments (qualitative vs quantitative), the methods used to collect data (objective versus subjective), and the assessment measures employed (process versus outcome).

A total of 57 CPG compliance assessment studies were reviewed. Almost two‐thirds employed objective methods. Of the subjective assessments, 47 per cent analysed solely quantitative data, 32 per cent analysed solely qualitative information and 21 per cent analysed both. More than four‐fifths of all studies used process measures to determine CPG compliance and only 5 per cent used solely outcome measures.

Depending on the methods used, assessments can help identify various factors influencing CPG compliance. Such factors may be related to the physician, guidelines, health system or patient. A good understanding of these factors and their role in influencing compliance behaviour will help health regulators and administrators plan better and more effective strategies to improve doctors' CPG compliance.

This review looks at the various aspects of CPGs to understand how these influence practitioners' compliance.

The experience of implementing clinical governance in Bradford South and West Primary Care Group illustrates how an emphasis on cultural change rather than on target setting, scrutiny and enforcement is both more consistent with the primary care context and more likely to create lasting improvements. The emerging focus on governance is reviewed and its implementation in one PCG via baseline assessment, strategic planning and innovative practice is presented. Linking clinical governance with a reduction in medical autonomy, as some commentators have done, does not allow for the complexity of power and responsibility characteristic of primary care. Alternative analytic models that draw on organizational theory and on sociology are offered.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the determinants of health outcomes of dialysis patients, while specifically focusing on the role of dialysis process measures and dialysis practice characteristics. The dialysis industry is facing a major transition from a volume-based health care system to a value-based cost-efficient care model, in the USA. Under the bundled Prospective Payment System, the treatment-based payment model is subject to meeting quality thresholds as defined by clinical process measures including dialysis adequacy and anemia management. Few studies have focused on studying these two processes and their association with the quality of patient health outcomes.

In this study, the authors focus on identifying the determinants of patient health outcomes among freestanding dialysis clinics, using a large cross-sectional data set of 4,571 dialysis clinics in the USA. The authors use econometric analyses to estimate the association between dialysis facility characteristics and practice patterns and their association with dialysis process measures and hospitalization risk.

The authors find that reusing dialyzers and increasing the number of dialysis stations is associated with higher levels of clinical quality. This research indicates that deploying more nurses on-site allows patients to avail adequate dialysis, while increasing the supply of physicians can hurt anemia control process. In addition, the authors report that offering peritoneal dialysis and late night shifts are not beneficial practices in terms of their impact on the hospitalization risk.

While early studies of dialysis care mainly focused on the associations between practice patterns and patient outcomes, this research reveals the underlying mechanisms of these relationships by exploring the mediation effects of clinical dialysis processes on patient outcomes. The results indicate that dialysis process measures mediate the impact of the operational characteristics of dialysis centers on patient hospitalization rates.

This study offers several managerial insights for owners and operators of dialysis clinics with respect to the association between managerial and clinical practices that they deploy within dialysis clinics and their impact on clinical quality measures as well as hospitalization risk of patients. Managers can draw on this study to optimize staffing levels in their dialysis clinics, and implement innovative clinical practices.

Considering the growth in healthcare expenditures in developing and developed countries, and specifically for costly diagnoses such as dialyses, this study offers several insights related to the inter-relationships between dialysis practice patterns and their clinical quality measures.

This study makes several major contributions. First, the authors address the extant gap in the literature on the relationships between dialysis facility and practice characteristics and clinical outcomes, while specifically highlighting the role of clinical process measures as antecedents of patient hospitalization ratio, a key metric used to measure performance of dialysis clinics. Second, this study sheds light on the underlying mechanisms that serve as enablers of the dialysis adequacy and anemia management. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore these relationships in the dialysis industry. The authors’ approach provides a new direction for future studies to explore the pathways that may impact clinical quality measures in the delivery of dialysis services.

The purpose of this paper is to empirically explore and conceptualize how healthcare professionals and managers give shape to the increasing call for compassionate care as an alternative for system-based quality management systems. The research demonstrates how quality rebels craft deviant practices of good care and how they account for them.

Ethnographic research was conducted in three Dutch hospitals, studying clinical groups that were identified as deviant: a nursing ward for infectious diseases, a mother–child department and a dialysis department. The research includes over 120 h of observation, 41 semi-structured interviews and 2 focus groups.

The research shows that rebels’ quality practices are an emerging set of collaborative activities to improving healthcare and meeting (individual) patient needs. They conduct “contexting work” to achieve their quality aims by expanding their normative work to outside domains. As rebels deviate from hospital policies, they are sometimes forced to act “under the radar” causing the risk of groupthink and may undermine the aim of public accounting.

The research shows that in order to come to more compassionate forms of care, organizations should allow for more heterogeneity accompanied with ongoing dialogue(s) on what good care yields as this may differ between specific fields or locations.

This is the first study introducing quality rebels as a concept to understanding social deviance in the everyday practices of doing compassionate and good care.

Key findings from recent and relevant studies on patient safety and clinical handoffs are summarized and analyzed. After briefly reviewing process management and accounting control theory, the aim of this paper is to discuss how these latter two disciplines can be combined to further improve patient safety in handoffs.

A literature review on studies of patient safety, clinical processes and clinical handoffs was conducted in leading medical, quality, and information systems journals.

This paper issues a call for research using a trans‐disciplinary methodology to shed new light on information quality issues in clinical handoff processes, which in turn should improve patient safety.

The literature review employed systematic, heuristic, iterative and practical criteria for identifying and selecting papers, trading off completeness for multi‐disciplinarity. No prior empirical patient safety studies combined process management and accounting control theory.

The above‐noted trans‐disciplinary analytic approach may help medical professionals develop more effective handoff processes, checklists, standard operating procedures (SOPs), clinical pathways, and supporting software, and audit and continuously monitor their implementation.

This paper responds to recent calls for trans‐disciplinary research on healthcare quality improvement. The literature review is valuable for understanding clinical handoff problems and solutions from multiple perspectives. The proposed combination of two theories – accounting control theory and business process management – is novel and useful for describing, improving and monitoring handoff processes in the broader context of clinical processes, using a common terminology for information quality traits.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the status of US hospital Laboratory Information Systems. Laboratory Information Systems are critical to high quality healthcare service provision. Data show that the need for these systems is growing to meet accompanying technological and workload demands. Additionally, laboratory tests provide the majority of information for clinical decision‐making. Laboratory processes automation, including patient result verification, has greatly improved laboratory test throughput while decreasing turn‐around‐times, enabling critical results to reach physicians rapidly for improved clinical outcomes.

Data were drawn from the 2007 Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Analytics Database, which includes over 5,000 US healthcare organizations and provides extensive data on the hardware, software, and information technology infrastructure within healthcare organizations.

US hospitals are actively involved in laboratory systems planning to improve health service quality. Specifically, data show 76 new laboratory information systems are currently being installed in 2007 with another 399 under contract for future installation. As a result, increasing investment in laboratory information systems is providing state‐of‐the‐art clinical laboratory support, which enhances clinical care processes and improves quality. These state‐of‐the‐art Laboratory Information Systems, when linked with other clinical information systems such as Computerized Physician Order Entry and Electronic Medical Record, will support further healthcare quality improvement.

This article includes the most current information available on the US hospital laboratory information system applications.

Presents a model for clinical governance developed from the work of Sutherland, Dawson and Mintzberg. The model relates existing quality assurance processes to three key components of quality maintenance, namely skills, outcomes and processes. Argues that from such a model the relevant actions for clinicians are easier to identify and the respective needs for corporate and clinical service level actions become easier to understand. In addition four generic questions are presented which allow detailed examination of a clinical service while addressing broad principles of clinician behaviour, continuous improvement of services, patient expectations and appropriateness of interventions. This approach of using simple generic models which can be easily adapted to a specific setting provides usable tools for understanding, enquiry and change, and encourages the continuing appropriate exercise of well‐maintained skills.

The quality of clinical care is a fundamental issue for both providers and recipients. It seems logical for the parties to collaborate. Increasing understanding of each other's values and perceived needs with commitment to incorporating both users' and clinicians' unique perspectives on clinical quality and effectiveness is a new venture which will further contribute to improving the quality of health care in the NHS.