Health Care Governance for Quality and Safety: The New Agenda

Exploring clinical communication in a teaching hospital in Ghana

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the clinical communication using Tamale Teaching Hospital as a case.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper is based on the Reassure, Explain, Listen, Answer, Take Action and Express Appreciation (RELATE) model and the Four Habits models of Clinical Communication.

Findings

The results of the study indicate that leadership conducted staff meetings with some of the components of the RELATE model. These include staff meetings, employee rounding and communication/notice boards. The results of the study also suggest that much as some parts of the Four Habits model was used in provider–patient communication, certain aspects of the model were absent. The study identified some communication challenges including poor dissemination, lack of unity among some health workers, poor attendance in meetings and, with respect to patients, language barrier, patients’ reluctance to disclose their actual health problems to health providers, lack of privacy and lack of a friendly environment.

Practical implications

Providers, especially physicians, should be given training on the local languages in areas where they perform their services. Health service providers should receive as part of their learning in-depth training on the Four Habits model of Clinical Communication, especially the Medical Officers.

Originality/value

It is imperative to embrace evidence-based practices/models aimed at securing proper communication in all hospitals but most especially teaching hospitals.

Effective board governance of safe care: a (theoretically underpinned) cross-sectioned examination of the breadth and depth of relationships through national quantitative surveys and in-depth qualitative case studies

Background

Recent high-profile reports into serious failings in the quality of hospital care in the NHS raise concerns over the ability of trust boards to discharge their duties effectively.

Objectives

Our study aimed to generate theoretically grounded empirical evidence on the associations between board governance, patient safety processes and patient-centred outcomes. The specific aims were as follows: (1) to identify the types of governance activities undertaken by hospital trust boards in the English NHS with regard to ensuring safe care in their organisation; (2) in foundation trusts, to explore the role of boards and boards of governors with regards to the oversight of patient safety in their organisation; (3) to assess the association between particular hospital trust board oversight activities and patient safety processes and clinical outcomes; (4) to identify the facilitators and barriers to developing effective hospital trust board governance of safe care; and (5) to assess the impact of external commissioning arrangements and incentives on hospital trust board oversight of patient safety.

Methods

The study comprised three distinct but interlocking strands: (1) a narrative systematic review in order to describe, interpret and synthesise key findings and debates concerning board oversight of patient safety; (2) in-depth mixed-methods case studies in four organisations to assess the impact of hospital board governance and external incentives on patient safety processes and outcomes; and (3) two national surveys exploring board management in NHS acute and specialist hospital trusts in England, and relating board characteristics to whole-organisation outcomes.

Results

A very high proportion of trust boards reported the kinds of desirable characteristics and board-related processes that research says may be associated with higher performance. Our analysis of the symbolic aspects of board activities highlights the role and differences in local processes of organising the governance of patient safety. Most boards do allocate a considerable amount of time to discussing patient safety and quality-related issues and were using a wide range of hard performance metrics and soft intelligence to monitor its organisation with regard to patient safety. Although the board of governors is generally perceived to be well-meaning, they were also considered to be being largely ineffective in helping to promote and deliver safer care for their organisations. We did not find any statistically significant relationship between board attributes (self-reported) and processes and any patient safety outcome measures. However, we did find a significant relationship between two dimensions of the Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire and two specific-and-related national staff survey organisational ‘process’ measures: (1) staff feeling safe to raise concerns about errors, near-misses and incidents and (2) staff feeling confident that their organisation would address their concerns, if raised. We also found that contracting and external financial incentives appeared to play only a relatively minor role in incentivising quality and safety improvement.

Conclusions

Our research is the first large-scale mixed-methods study of hospital board activity and behaviour related to the oversight of patient safety in the English NHS and the key findings should be used to influence the design of future governance arrangements as well as the training and support of board. Our finding that board governance/competencies appear to be linked to staff feeling safe to raise concerns about patient safety issues, and also their confidence that their organisation would address their concern, is worthy of further and more sustained exploration, particularly in the context of the current focus on improving whistleblowing policies in the NHS.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Hospital board oversight of quality and patient safety: a narrative review and synthesis of recent empirical research

CONTEXT

Recurring problems with patient safety have led to a growing interest in helping hospitals' governing bodies provide more effective oversight of the quality and safety of their services. National directives and initiatives emphasize the importance of action by boards, but the empirical basis for informing effective hospital board oversight has yet to receive full and careful review.

METHODS

This article presents a narrative review of empirical research to inform the debate about hospital boards' oversight of quality and patient safety. A systematic and comprehensive search identified 122 papers for detailed review. Much of the empirical work appeared in the last ten years, is from the United States, and employs cross-sectional survey methods.

FINDINGS

Recent empirical studies linking board composition and processes with patient outcomes have found clear differences between high- and low-performing hospitals, highlighting the importance of strong and committed leadership that prioritizes quality and safety and sets clear and measurable goals for improvement. Effective oversight is also associated with well-informed and skilled board members. External factors (such as regulatory regimes and the publication of performance data) might also have a role in influencing boards, but detailed empirical work on these is scant.

CONCLUSIONS

Health policy debates recognize the important role of hospital boards in overseeing patient quality and safety, and a growing body of empirical research has sought to elucidate that role. This review finds a number of areas of guidance that have some empirical support, but it also exposes the relatively inchoate nature of the field. Greater theoretical and methodological development is required if we are to secure more evidence-informed governance systems and practices that can contribute to safer care.

The business case for quality: economic analysis of the Michigan Keystone Patient Safety Program in ICUs

Health care-associated infections affect an estimated 5% of hospitalized patients and represent one of the leading causes of illness and death in the United States. This study calculates the costs and benefits of a patient safety program in intensive care units in 6 hospitals that were part of the Michigan Keystone ICU Patient Safety Program. On average, 29.9 catheter-related bloodstream infections and 18.0 cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia were averted per hospital on an annual basis. The average cost of the intervention is $3375 per infection averted, measured in 2007 dollars. The cost of the intervention is substantially less than estimates of the additional health care costs associated with these infections, which range from $12 208 to $56 167 per infection episode. These results do not take into account the additional effect of the Michigan Keystone program in terms of reducing cases of sepsis or its effects in terms of preventing mortality, improving teamwork, and reducing nurse turnover.

Getting boards on board: engaging governing boards in quality and safety

BACKGROUND

As hospitals seek to drive rapid quality improvement, boards have an opportunity-and a significant responsibility--to make better quality of care the organization's top priority.

INTERVENTION

"Six things all boards should do to improve quality and reduce harm" are recommended: (1) setting aims--set a specific aim to reduce harm this year; make an explicit, public commitment to measurable quality improvement; (2) getting data and hearing stories--select and review progress toward safer care as the first agenda item at every board meeting, grounded in transparency--and putting a "human face" on harm data; (3) establishing and monitoring system-level measures--identify a small group of organizationwide "roll-up" measures of patient safety that are continually updated and are made transparent to the entire organization and its customers; (4) changing the environment, policies, and culture--commit to establish and maintain an environment that is respectful, fair, and just for all who experience the pain and loss as a result of avoidable harm and adverse outcomes: the patients, their families, and the staff at the sharp end of error; (5) learning, starting with the board--develop the board's capability and learn about how "best-in-the-world" boards work with executive and medical staff leaders to reduce harm; (6) establishing executive accountability--oversee the effective execution of a plan to achieve aims to reduce harm, including executive team accountability for clear quality improvement targets.