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

Applying a new approach to the governance of healthcare quality at board level

Purpose

This paper describes a quality improvement project to improve oversight of quality at national board level using statistical process control (SPC) methods, complimented by a qualitative experience of patients and frontline staff. It demonstrates the application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach and shares the lessons learnt.

Design/methodology/approach

Using co-design and applying the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach, the project team supported the directors of the Irish health system to identify and test a qualitative and quantitative picture of the quality of care across the health system. A “Quality Profile” consisting of quantitative indicators, analysed using SPC methods was used to provide an overview of the “critical few” indicators across health and social care. Patient and front-line staff experiences added depth and context to the data. These methods were tested and evolved over the course of six meetings, leading to quality of care being prioritised and interrogated at board level.

Findings

This project resulted in the integration of quality as a substantive and prioritised agenda item. Using best practice SPC methods with associated training produced better understanding of performance of the system. In addition, bringing patient and staff experiences of quality to the forefront “people-ised” the data.

Originality/value

The application of the “Picture-Understanding-Action” approach facilitated the development of a co-designed quality agenda item. This is a novel process that shifted the focus from “providing” information to co-designing fit-for-purpose information at board level.

Governance in Moroccan public hospitals: critical analysis and perspectives for action

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the framework of hospital governance in order to understanding the persistence of dysfunctions that have caused the deterioration of the image and quality of Moroccan public hospital services.

Design/methodology/approach

The analysis of the hospital governance model has used a conceptual framework examining four dimensions: institutional, financial, accountability and decision-making dimensions. This framework operationalization was highlighted through a documentary review of the main regulatory and legal texts as well as multiple case studies, using semi-structured interviews with the key stakeholders, considering their expertise and implication in the governance process.

Findings

The study was able to highlight that the governance structure of Moroccan public hospitals has been subject to numerous legislative provisions and modern management instruments. However, the limited autonomy, the resources shortage, dilapidated equipment, the chronic budget deficit, staff demotivation, the lack of accountability mechanisms have led to the deterioration of the quality of care and, hence, to patient's dissatisfaction.

Practical implications

The analysis formed the basis for a series of recommendations. These were mainly aimed at rethinking the current governance model by setting up an institutional policy to improve the current governance structures and monitoring mechanisms of hospitals, as well as revising the instruments for planning and evaluating the provision of care and services according to the real needs of the population, taking into account the financial limits.

Social implications

The hospital governance framework is proving to be a powerful tool for identifying the problems contributing to sub-optimal hospital performance, and calls for policy interventions to improve the organisation organization and delivery of hospital services with greater patient involvement.

Originality/value

This study was the first to analyse the Moroccan hospital governance model, using a comprehensive and structured evaluation methodology designed for public hospitals and supported by extensive data collection which made it possible to offer a broad and in-depth view of the actual functioning of these institutions.

Exploring how key performance indicators influence nursing and midwifery practice: A mixed-methods study

AIMS

To scope the key performance indicators (KPIs) used in nursing and midwifery across the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland and explore how they influence practice in healthcare organizations.

DESIGN

The study adopted a sequential, exploratory mixed-methods design.

METHODS

Phase 1 incorporated a multiple-choice questionnaire completed by 77 Directors of Nursing recruited using voluntary response sampling. In phase 2, 35 nurses and midwives who were working at executive, senior manager and clinical levels, participated in semi-structured interviews. Data collection of both phases was conducted from January 2016 to October 2016.

FINDINGS

Quantitative data revealed over 100 nursing and midwifery-specific KPIs. National requirements were a deciding factor in KPI selection, while clinical involvement was mainly through data collection. Respondents stated that they used patient experience KPIs, but only one was assessed as valid. Thematic analysis identified two themes: The leadership challenge (including 'voiceless in the national conversation', 'aligning KPIs in the practice context' and 'listening to those who matter'); and taking action (including 'establishing ownership and engaging staff', 'checks and balances' and 'closing the loop').

CONCLUSION

The large volume of KPI measurement taking place makes meaningful evaluation of performance and quality of care difficult, both in and across organizations. Nurses and midwives require enhanced knowledge of the nature and purpose of KPIs, as evidence gained from KPI data collection is insufficient to lead to improvements in practice. A practice context that encourages collective leadership, where multiple sources of evidence are gathered and everyone is included in KPI evaluation and subsequent decision-making, is key.

IMPACT

This study adds to the body of evidence on KPI understanding. It informs the future effective management of indicators that will facilitate the delivery of meaningful care and reduce the cost, time and effort invested in the implementation of KPIs and data management.

Roles and behaviours of diligent and dynamic healthcare boards

Variation persists in the quality of board-level leadership of hospitals. The consequences of poor leadership can be catastrophic for patients. The year 2019 marks 50 years of public inquiries into healthcare failures in the UK. The aim of this article is to enhance our understanding of context-specific effectiveness of healthcare board practices, drawing on an empirical study of changes in hospital board leadership in England. The study suggests leadership behaviours that lay the conditions for better organisation performance. We locate our findings within the wider theoretical debates about corporate governance, responding to calls for theoretical pluralism and insights into the effects of discretionary effort on the part of board members. We conclude by proposing a framework for the ‘restless’ board from a multi-theoretic standpoint, and suggest a repertoire specifically for healthcare boards. This comprises a suite of board roles as conscience of the organisation, sensor, shock absorber, diplomat and coach, with accompanying dyadic behaviours to match particular organisation aims and priorities. The repertoire indicates the importance of a cluster of leadership practices to fulfil the purposes of healthcare boards in differing, complex and challenging contexts.

Understanding corporate governance of healthcare quality: a comparative case study of eight Australian public hospitals

Background

Patients are sometimes harmed in the course of receiving hospital care. Existing research has highlighted a positive association between board engagement in healthcare quality activities and healthcare outcomes. However, most research has been undertaken through surveys examining board engagement in a limited number of governance processes. This paper presents evidence of a comprehensive range of processes related to governing healthcare quality undertaken at the corporate governance level. This provides a more detailed picture than previously described of how corporate governance of healthcare quality is enacted by boards and management.

Methods

A comparative case study of eight Australian public hospitals was undertaken. Case studies varying is size and location were selected from two Australian states. Data collection included a review of key governance documentation, semi structured interviews with board members and senior management and an observation of a board quality committee meeting. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify processes related to key tasks in governing healthcare quality.

Results

Two key tasks in the corporate governance of healthcare quality, evaluating healthcare quality and overseeing quality priorities, were examined. Numerous processes related to these two tasks were found. Case studies, while found to be similar in engagement on previously identified processes, were found to differ in engagement in these additional processes. While generally low levels of engagement in processes of overseeing quality priorities were found, cases differed markedly in their engagement in evaluating healthcare quality processes. Additional processes undertaken at some case studies represent innovative and mature responses to the need for effective corporate governance of healthcare quality. In addition, a group of processes, related to broader governance taskwork, were found to be important in enabling effective corporate governance of healthcare quality.

Conclusion

The work of governing healthcare quality, undertaken at the corporate governance level, is redefined in terms of these more detailed processes. This paper highlights that it is how well these key tasks are undertaken that is important in effective governance. When processes related to key tasks are omitted, the rituals of governance may appear to be satisfied but the responsibility may not be met. Boards and managers need to differentiate between common approaches to governance and practices that enable the fulfilment of governance responsibilities. This study provides practical guidance in outlining processes for effective corporate governance of healthcare quality and highlights areas for further examination.

Involving hybrid professionals in top management decision-making: How managerial training can make the difference

Hybrid professionals have a two-fold – professional and managerial – role, which requires appropriate management skills. Investing on managerial training programs aims to empower professionals with managerial skills and competencies. Does this pay back? Assessing the impact of such training programs is still a limited practice. This paper explores whether participation in managerial training programs in healthcare can enhance the involvement of hybrid professionals (namely, clinical directors) in top management decision-making. The mediational effects of knowledge of performance information and its use are explored.

Survey data were collected from more than 3000 clinical directors of 69 public health authorities from five regional healthcare systems in Italy. Relationships between participation in managerial training programs, performance management practices (i.e., knowledge and use of performance information) and the level of clinicians’ involvement by the top management were studied using a three-path mediation analysis with structural equation modelling. Propensity score matching was also performed to mitigate selection bias.

Knowledge and use of performance information positively mediate, both independently and sequentially, the relationship between clinical directors' participation in managerial training programs and the level of their involvement in decision-making.

The results of the study suggest that managerial training can support hybrid professionals in engaging with managerialism and playing upward influence on top management decision-making.

Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews

Background

There is compelling evidence to suggest that some (or even many) NHS staff feel unable to speak up, and that even when they do, their organisation may respond inappropriately.

Objectives

The specific project objectives were (1) to explore the academic and grey literature on whistleblowing and related concepts, identifying the key theoretical frameworks that can inform an understanding of whistleblowing; (2) to synthesise the empirical evidence about the processes that facilitate or impede employees raising concerns; (3) to examine the legal framework(s) underpinning whistleblowing; (4) to distil the lessons for whistleblowing policies from the findings of Inquiries into failings of NHS care; (5) to ascertain the views of stakeholders about the development of whistleblowing policies; and (6) to develop practical guidance for future policy-making in this area.

Methods

The study comprised four distinct but interlocking strands: (1) a series of narrative literature reviews, (2) an analysis of the legal issues related to whistleblowing, (3) a review of formal Inquiries related to previous failings of NHS care and (4) interviews with key informants.

Results

Policy prescriptions often conceive the issue of raising concerns as a simple choice between deciding to ‘blow the whistle’ and remaining silent. Yet research suggests that health-care professionals may raise concerns internally within the organisation in more informal ways before utilising whistleblowing processes. Potential areas for development here include the oversight of whistleblowing from an independent agency; early-stage protection for whistleblowers; an examination of the role of incentives in encouraging whistleblowing; and improvements to criminal law to protect whistleblowers. Perhaps surprisingly, there is little discussion of, or recommendations concerning, whistleblowing across the previous NHS Inquiry reports.

Limitations

Although every effort was made to capture all relevant papers and documents in the various reviews using comprehensive search strategies, some may have been missed as indexing in this area is challenging. We interviewed only a small number of people in the key informant interviews, and our findings may have been different if we had included a larger sample or informants with different roles and responsibilities.

Conclusions

Current policy prescriptions that seek to develop better whistleblowing policies and nurture open reporting cultures are in need of more evidence. Although we set out a wide range of issues, it is beyond our remit to convert these concerns into specific recommendations: that is a process that needs to be led from elsewhere, and in partnership with the service. There is also still much to learn regarding this important area of health policy, and we have highlighted a number of important gaps in knowledge that are in need of more sustained research.

Future work

A key area for future research is to explore whistleblowing as an unfolding, situated and interactional process and not just a one-off act by an identifiable whistleblower. In particular, we need more evidence and insights into the tendency for senior managers not to hear, accept or act on concerns about care raised by employees.

Funding

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

Quality and safety between ward and board: a biography of artefacts study

Background

There have been concerns about the quality and safety of NHS hospital services since the turn of the millennium. This study investigated the progress that acute NHS hospital trusts have made in developing and using technology infrastructures to enable them to monitor quality and safety following the publication in 2013 of the second Francis report on the scandal at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. Chaired by Sir Robert Francis QC.Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. HC 898. London: The Stationery Office; 2013).

Methods

A telephone survey of 15 acute NHS trusts in the Yorkshire and the Humber region, and a review of board papers of all acute NHS trusts in England for January 2015, were undertaken. The telephone survey was used to identify trusts for a larger field study, which was undertaken in four acute NHS trusts between April 2015 and September 2016. The methods included the direct observation of the use of whiteboards and other technologies on two wards in each trust, an observation of board quality committees, semistructured interviews and an analysis of the quality and safety data in board papers. Published sources about national and local agencies were reviewed to identify the trust quality and safety data that these agencies accessed and used. An interview programme was also undertaken with those organisations. The Biography of Artefacts approach was used to analyse the data.

Findings

The data and technology infrastructures within trusts had developed over many years. The overall design had been substantially determined by national agencies, and was geared to data processing: capturing and validating data for submission to national agencies. Trust boards had taken advantage of these data and used them to provide assurance about quality and safety. Less positively, the infrastructures were fragmented, with different technologies used to handle different quality and safety data. Real-time management systems on wards, including electronic whiteboards and mobile devices, were used and valued by nurses and other staff. The systems support the proactive management of clinical risks. These developments have occurred within a broad context, with trusts focusing on improving the quality and safety of services and publishing far more data on their performance than they did just 3 years earlier. Trust-level data suggest that quality and safety improved at all four trusts between 2013 and 2016. Our findings indicate that the technology infrastructures contributed to these improvements. There remains considerable scope to rationalise those infrastructures.

Limitations

The four trusts in the main study were, in part, purposively selected, and deliberately biased towards sites that had made progress with designing and deploying real-time ward management systems. This limits the generalisability of the study. The study focused more on the work of nurses and nurse managers, and has relatively little to say about the experiences of doctors or allied health professionals.

Future work

Future research might focus on the effects of mobile technologies and electronic whiteboards on acute wards, the value of current national data returns, and the uses and value of trust data warehouses.

Funding

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

How do hospital boards govern for quality improvement? A mixed methods study of 15 organisations in England

BACKGROUND

Health systems worldwide are increasingly holding boards of healthcare organisations accountable for the quality of care that they provide. Previous empirical research has found associations between certain board practices and higher quality patient care; however, little is known about how boards govern for quality improvement (QI).

METHODS

We conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period in 15 healthcare provider organisations in England as part of a wider evaluation of a board-level organisational development intervention. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=65), board meeting observations (60 hours) and documents (30 sets of board meeting papers, 15 board minutes and 15 Quality Accounts). We analysed the data using a framework developed from existing evidence of links between board practices and quality of care. We mapped the variation in how boards enacted governance of QI and constructed a measure of QI governance maturity. We then compared organisations to identify the characteristics of those with mature QI governance.

RESULTS

We found that boards with higher levels of maturity in relation to governing for QI had the following characteristics: explicitly prioritising QI; balancing short-term (external) priorities with long-term (internal) investment in QI; using data for QI, not just quality assurance; engaging staff and patients in QI; and encouraging a culture of continuous improvement. These characteristics appeared to be particularly enabled and facilitated by board-level clinical leaders.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how boards govern for QI. The identified characteristics of organisations with mature QI governance seemed to be enabled by active clinical leadership. Future research should explore the biographies, identities and work practices of board-level clinical leaders and their role in organisation-wide QI.

Do Hospital Boards matter for better, safer, patient care?

Manifest failings in healthcare quality and safety in many countries have focused attention on the role of hospital Boards. While a growing literature has drawn attention to the potential impacts of Board composition and Board processes, little work has yet been carried out to examine the influence of Board competencies. In this work, we first validate the structure of an established 'Board competencies' self-assessment instrument in the English NHS (the Board Self-Assessment Questionnaire, or BSAQ). This tool is then used to explore in English acute hospitals the relationships between (a) Board competencies and staff perceptions about how well their organisation deals with quality and safety issues; and (b) Board competencies and a raft of patient safety and quality measures at organisation level. National survey data from 95 hospitals (334 Board members) confirmed the factor structure of the BSAQ, validating it for use in the English NHS. Moreover, better Board competencies were correlated in consistent ways with beneficial staff attitudes to the reporting and handling of quality and safety issues (using routinely collected data from the NHS National Staff Survey). However, relationships between Board competencies and aggregate outcomes for a variety of quality and safety measures showed largely inconsistent and non-significant relationships. Overall, these data suggest that Boards may be able to impact on important staff perceptions. Further work is required to unpack the impact of Board attributes on organisational aggregate outcomes.