Reconsidering clinical accountability. An examination of some dilemmas inherent in efforts to bolster clinician accountability

Predictors of online accountability practices in US hospitals: An exploratory investigation

The purpose of this research paper is to explore variations in online accountability practices in US hospitals and determine the factors that are associated with higher levels of online accountability practices. This project employed a quantitative content analysis of 240 US hospital websites. Additionally, secondary data were obtained from the American Hospital Association and the American Hospital Directory. The results show that the external environment somewhat impacted hospitals' online accountability practices, with hospital volume (measured through the number of annual admissions) as an unquestionable predictor. Another key finding is that some of the governance forms impacted online accountability practices. Particularly, hospitals with private ownership structures tended to disclose less accountability information in an online environment, compared with their public and nonprofit counterparts. The financial situation of hospitals did not have any significant impact on overall online accountability practices but was influencing performance disclosure practices. Online accountability studies have not been conducted in a health care setting. This research theoretically relates online accountability practices to organizational characteristics (such as size, volume, financial performance, system affiliation, ownership, and rurality). Knowledge of the online accountability landscape might benefit future policy decisions on accountability models.

Using programme theory to evaluate delivery of health services: A methodology accessible to clinicians

Background:

With healthcare providers experiencing increasing demand to evaluate clinical service delivery, it is necessary to explore evaluation methodologies that can accommodate the complexities and contextual factors in health-care systems and human systems in general. Methodologies must also be comprehensible to clinicians. Programme theory is one such methodology.

Content:

This paper presents a brief description of programme theory methodology and a case study of the use of this approach in a custom wheelchair seating service for people with spinal cord injury.

Conclusions:

Programme theory is a useful methodology for examining how a service operates and whether it achieves what it sets out to do. It is essential that clinicians challenge and test their assumptions about their services and act on information obtained in order to continuously improve service delivery.

Multiple accountabilities in incident reporting and management

In this article, we examine the current and increasing emphasis on accountability and patient safety in health care, focusing on practices of incident reporting and management in New South Wales, Australia. We describe the frames of accountability associated with an incident reporting system, and explore how this system manifests in practice. In contrast to literature that situates incident reporting and local practices as oppositional, we used ethnographic methods to observe the incident management practices of clinical staff in a hospital, and found evidence to characterize this relationship differently. We found that accountability has multiple conceptualizations, and we present three findings that demonstrate how the reporting system and incident management policy are interwoven with local enactments of accountability. We suggest that systematic efforts toward improvement cannot be divorced from the local context, and emphasize the importance of local ecologies of practice in facilitating the meaningful utilization of such incident reporting systems.

Health professionals' enactment of their accountability obligations: doing the best they can

In the current context of health care, health professionals' accountability obligations may be more extensive than the degree of autonomy that they are permitted to exercise. To date, how professionals fulfil their obligations with regard to this potential for dissonance has not been investigated. The purpose of this Grounded Theory study was to examine how one professional group, occupational therapists, enacted their accountability obligations within their current practice context. Interviews with 21 therapists across three practice sectors in one Canadian province elicited a detailed portrait of the contextual elements within which accountability enactment took place, and a view of the dynamic interplay of these elements with the decision-making involved in fulfilling professional accountabilities. Practitioners moved back and forth between conscious juggling of accountability expectations and more automatically applying tacit practice knowledge. Beyond non-negotiable bottom line commitments to their formal ethical obligations and to retaining autonomy for their clinical recommendations, practitioners' decisions reflected the goal of doing their best. However, participants' efforts to find a balance between satisfactorily fulfilling their obligations and acknowledging the frequently unavoidable reality of contextual constraints elicited inconsistent patterns. The study findings raise concerns about ensuring quality of services and the impact on professionals. Although practitioners have an important role to play in addressing these challenges, other stakeholders, for example, the professional regulatory bodies, also must play a role in creating a coherent accountability framework. Further research is needed to obtain greater understanding of professional accountability enactment across health professions, practice sectors and health jurisdictions, and to explore managerial and professional regulatory bodies' perspectives, roles and responsibilities.

Practising Open Disclosure: clinical incident communication and systems improvement

This article explores the way that professionals are being inducted into articulating apologies to consumers of their services, in this case clinicians apologising to patients. The article focuses on the policy of Open Disclosure that is being adopted by health care organisations in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia and other nations. Open Disclosure policy mandates 'open discussion of clinical incidents' with patient victims. In Australia, Open Disclosure policy implementation is currently being complemented by intensive staff training, involving simulation of apology scenarios with actor-patients. The article presents an analysis of data collected from such training sessions. The analysis shows how simulated apologising engages frontline staff in evaluating the efficacy of their disclosures, and how staff may thereby be inducted into reconciling their affective and reflexive sensibilities with their organisational and professional responsibilities, and thereby produce the required organisational apology. The article concludes that Open Disclosure, besides potentially relaxing tensions between clinicians and consumers, may also affect how staff experience and enact their role in the overall system of health care organisation.

Shifting clinical accountability and the pursuit of quality: aligning clinical and administrative approaches

This paper presents a narrative review of the literature on clinical accountability, and draws particularly on England's experience establishing "clinical governance" as a base to examine the establishment of a clinical accountability framework for cancer services in Ontario. The review suggests that clinical governance and accountability approaches that actively mesh clinical and administrative approaches at both system and local levels are more likely to be effective in improving quality of care.

A root cause analysis of clinical error: Confronting the disjunction between formal rules and situated clinical activity

This paper presents evidence from a root cause analysis (RCA) team meeting that was recently conducted in a Sydney Metropolitan Teaching Hospital to investigate an iatrogenic morphine overdose. Analysis of the meeting transcript reveals on three levels that clinical members of the team struggle with framing the uncertain and contradictory details of situated clinical activity and translating these first into 'root causes', and then into recommendations for practice change. This analysis puts two challenges into special relief. First, RCA team members find themselves in the unusual position of having to derive organizational-managerial generalizations from the specifics of in situ activity. Second, they are constrained by the expectation inscribed into RCA that their recommendations result in 'systems improvements' assumed to flow forth from an extension of formal rules and spread of procedures. We argue that this perspective misrecognizes the importance of RCA as a means to engender solutions that leave the procedural detail of clinical processes unspecified, and produce cross-hospital discussions about the organizational dimensions of care.

Clinicians and the governance of hospitals: A cross-cultural perspective on relations between profession and management

This paper explores similarities and differences in the value stances of clinicians and hospital managers in Australia, England, New Zealand and China, and provides some new insights into how we theorise about the health profession and its relations with management. The paper draws on data derived from a closed-ended questionnaire administered to 2637 hospital-based medical, nursing and managerial staff. We examine variations between the countries in the value orientations of doctors, nurses and managers by considering their assessments of issues that are the focus of reform. In particular, we examine the ways in which the Chinese findings differ from those of the other countries. Whereas the results from the Commonwealth hospitals showed a marked division between clinicians and managers about issues that can affect clinical autonomy, this was not the case in the Chinese hospitals. The concluding discussion traces these differences to a number of cultural, organisational and policy-based factors. The implications of our findings on how we conceive the relationship between professionals and organisations are then discussed, as are further lines of research.

Hospital doctors' views of their CPD and its relationship to learning in the organization

Continuing professional development (CPD) has traditionally been an autonomous, professional concern of doctors in the UK. In a changing educational and service climate, can individualized approaches to CPD be reconciled with adult learning principles and learning that is practice-based and multidisciplinary? A survey of the CPD of consultant and non-consultant career grade staff in Wales (UK) has provided some clues on how doctors perceive their learning needs in relation to those of Trust hospitals. It indicated that these doctors pursued traditional forms of continuing education (reading, lectures and meetings), gained clinical knowledge and changed their practice as a result. The majority saw themselves as accountable for CPD to their college and specialty. Trusts had yet to promote CPD as a clinical governance priority but respondents felt that appraisal helped to mediate individual and organizational perspectives of CPD. Most career-grade doctors believed their CPD activities met the needs of their employing organizations and felt satisfied with a 'traditional' approach to CPD. Doctors and service organizations may need to confront preconceptions regarding education and respective roles in the negotiation of CPD if team-based learning in practice is to become established.

Narrativizing errors of care: Critical incident reporting in clinical practice

This paper considers the rise across acute care settings in the industrialized world of techniques that encourage clinicians to record their experiences about adverse events they are personally involved in; that is, to share narratives about errors, mishaps or 'critical incidents'. The paper proposes that critical incident reporting and the 'root cause' investigations it affords, are both central to the effort to involve clinicians in managing and organizing their work, and a departure from established methods and approaches to achieve clinicians' involvement in these non-clinical domains of health care. We argue that critical incident narratives render visible details of the clinical work that have thus far only been discussed in closed, paperless meetings, and that, as narratives, they incite individuals to share personal experiences with parties previously excluded from knowledge about failure. Drawing on a study of 124 medical retrieval incident reports, the paper provides illustrations and interpretations of both the narrative and the meta-discursive dimensions of critical incident reporting. We suggest that, as a new and complex genre, critical incident reporting achieves three important objectives. First, it provides clinicians with a channel for dealing with incidents in a way that brings problems to light in a non-blaming way and that might therefore be morally satisfying and perhaps even therapeutic. Second, these narrations make available new spaces for the apprehension, identification and performance of self. Here, the incident report becomes a space where clinicians publicly perform concern about what happened. Third, incident reporting becomes the basis for radically altering the clinician-organization relationship. As a complex expression of clinical failure and its re-articulation into organizational meta-discourse, incident reporting puts doctors' selves and feelings at risk not just within the relative safety of personal or intra-professional relationships, but also in the normative context of organizational coordination, accountability, planning and management.

Realising the developmental potential of Clinical Governance

To be effective, Clinical Governance should reach all levels of a healthcare organisation. It requires structures and processes that integrate financial control, service performance, and clinical quality in ways that will engage clinicians and generate service improvements. The Clinical Governance arrangements of many Trusts, however, present several flaws. In particular, the “silos” organisational structure of Clinical Governance is based on generic issues such as risk management, clinical audit, clinical effectiveness and staff development, and it tends to treat clinical work as an undifferentiated aggregate. An alternative model focused on clinical pathways and on a balance between professional autonomy and accountability (responsible autonomy) should be promoted to make Clinical Governance work.

Medical Education and Curriculum Reform: Putting Reform Proposals in Context

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate criteria by which the principles of curriculum reform can be judged. To this end, the paper presents an overview of standard critiques of medical education and examines the ways medical curriculum reforms have responded to these critiques. The paper then sets out our assessment of these curriculum reforms along three parameters: pedagogy, educational context, and knowledge status. Following on from this evaluation of recent curriculum reforms, the paper puts forward four criteria with which to gauge the adequacy medical curriculum reform. These criteria enable us to question the extent to which new curricula incorporate methods and approaches for ensuring that its substance: overcomes the traditional opposition between clinical and resource dimensions of care; emphasizes that the clinical work needs to be systematized in so far as that it feasible; promotes multi-disciplinary team work, and balances clinical autonomy with accountability to non-clinical stakeholders.

Making clinical governance work

The current focus on quality and safety means most doctors have negative views about clinical governance. But done properly, clinical governance has the power to improve NHS performance