Community representation in hospital decision making: a literature review
Zoë MurraySchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Qld 4222, Australia. Email: z.murray@griffith.edu.au
Australian Health Review 39(3) 323-328 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14016
Submitted: 30 January 2014 Accepted: 3 November 2014 Published: 9 February 2015
Journal Compilation © AHHA 2015
Abstract
Objective Advancing quality in health services requires structures and processes that are informed by consumer input. Although this agenda is well recognised, few researchers have focussed on the establishment and maintenance of customer input throughout the structures and processes used to produce high-quality, safe care. We present an analysis of literature outlining the barriers and enablers involved in community representation in hospital governance. The review aimed to explore how community representation in hospital governance is achieved.
Methods Studies spanning 1997–2012 were analysed using Donabedian’s model of quality systems as a guide for categories of interest: structure, in relation to administration of quality; process, which is particularly concerned with cooperation and culture; and outcome, considered, in this case, to be the achievement of effective community representation on quality of care.
Results There are limited published studies on community representation in hospital governance in Australia. What can be gleaned from the literature is: 1) quality subcommittees set up to assist Hospital Boards are a key structure for involving community representation in decision making around quality of care, and 2) there are a number of challenges to effectively developing the process of community representation in hospital governance: ambiguity and the potential for escalated indecision; inadequate value and consideration given to it by decision makers resulting in a lack of time and resources needed to support the community engagement strategy (time, facilitation, budgets); poor support and attitude amongst staff; and consumer issues, such as feeling isolated and intimidated by expert opinion.
Conclusions The analysis indicates that: quality subcommittees set up to assist boards are a key structure for involving community representation in decision making around quality of care. There are clearly a number of challenges to effectively developing the process of community representation in hospital governance, associated with ambiguity, organisational and consumer issues. For an inclusive agenda to real life, work must be done on understanding the representatives’ role and the decision making process, adequately supporting the representational process, and developing organisational cooperation and culture regarding community representation.
What is known about the topic? Partnering community is recognised as a fundamental element of hospital quality improvement strategies and the implementation of the Australian agenda for advancing the quality of health service standards. It is also known that developing collaborative environments and partnerships can be a challenging process, and that it is good practice to consider the factors that will influence their success and develop an approach built on the identification of potential challenges and the incorporation of facilitators.
What does this paper add? This paper draws out key obstacles that can challenge the process of involving community representation into hospital governance structures.
What are the implications for practitioners? There is little published on the challenges to community engagement in the hospital governance setting. By doing this, this paper encourages the recognition that although partnering with the community is an essential aspect of achieving quality of care, it requires significant effort and support to be an effective aspect. The paper highlights challenges and facilitators that practitioners should consider if planning for successful community representation on hospital committees.
References
[1] Butterfoss FD. Coalitions and partnerships in community health. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.[2] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). National safety and quality health service standards. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2011.
[3] Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council. A model framework for consumer and community participation in research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2004.
[4] Longest BB. Managerial competence at senior levels of integrated delivery. J Healthc Manag 1998; 43 115–33.
| 10179015PubMed |
[5] Duncan-Marr A, Duckett SJ. Board self-evaluation: the Bayside Health experience. Aust Health Rev 2005; 29 340–344.
| Board self-evaluation: the Bayside Health experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16053439PubMed |
[6] Jiang HJ, Lockee C, Bass K, Fraser I. Board engagement in quality: findings of a survey of hospital and system leaders. J Healthc Manag 2008; 53 121–34.
| 18421996PubMed |
[7] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). The Australian safety and quality framework for health care. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2010.
[8] Gregory J. Conceptualising consumer engagement: a review in literature. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Health Policy Studies; 2007.
[9] Denis J-L, Dompierre G, Langley A, Rouleau L. Escalating indecision: between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organ Sci 2011; 22 225–44.
| Escalating indecision: between reification and strategic ambiguity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Nathan S, Johnston L, Braithwaite J. The role of community representatives on health service committees: staff expectations vs. reality. Health Expect 2011; 14 272–84.
| The role of community representatives on health service committees: staff expectations vs. reality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21029280PubMed |
[11] Martin GP, Finn R. Patients as team members: opportunities, challenges and paradoxes of including patients in multi-professional healthcare teams. Sociol Health Illn 2011; 33 1050–65.
| Patients as team members: opportunities, challenges and paradoxes of including patients in multi-professional healthcare teams.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21668454PubMed |
[12] Health Outcomes International (HOI). Department of human services evaluation of the effectiveness of the community advisory committee to boards of Victorian public health services. Kent Town: HOI; 2008.
[13] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC). Patient centred care: improving quality and safety through partnership with patients and consumers. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2011.
[14] Agbodzakey JK. Collaborative governance of HIV health services planning councils in Broward and Palm Beach counties of South Florida. Public Organ Rev 2012; 12 107–26.
| Collaborative governance of HIV health services planning councils in Broward and Palm Beach counties of South Florida.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Quennell P. Getting their say, or getting their way: has participation strengthened the patient ‘voice’ in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? J Manag Med 2001; 15 202–19.
| Getting their say, or getting their way: has participation strengthened the patient ‘voice’ in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvpslGjsg%3D%3D&md5=03271e6790677d6fdf34ccadabb2c0d7CAS | 11547580PubMed |
[16] Andreassen TA. Asymmetric mutuality: user involvement as a government–voluntary sector relationship in Norway. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 2008; 37 281–99.
| Asymmetric mutuality: user involvement as a government–voluntary sector relationship in Norway.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Storey J, Holti R. Sense-making by clinical and non-clinical executive directors within new governance arrangements. J Health Organ Manag 2009; 23 149–69.
| Sense-making by clinical and non-clinical executive directors within new governance arrangements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19711775PubMed |
[18] Adler PS, Kwon S, Heckscher C. Professional work: the emergence of collaborative community. Organ Sci 2008; 19 359–76.
| Professional work: the emergence of collaborative community.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Beardwood B, Walters V, Eyles J, French S. Complaints against nurses: a reflection of ‘the new managerialism’ and consumerism in health care? Soc Sci Med 1999; 48 363–74.
| Complaints against nurses: a reflection of ‘the new managerialism’ and consumerism in health care?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1M7nsV2jsA%3D%3D&md5=44c567d7cded8c6839f13781912b461fCAS | 10077284PubMed |
[20] Sanders D, Labonte R, Baum F, Chopra M. Making research matter: a civil society perspective on health research. Bull World Health Organ 2004; 82 757–63.
| 15643797PubMed |
[21] Anton S, McKee L, Harrison S, Farrar S. Involving the public in NHS service planning. J Health Organ Manag 2007; 21 470–83.
| Involving the public in NHS service planning.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17933377PubMed |
[22] Buchanan D, Abbott S, Bentley J, Lanceley A, Meyer J. Let’s be PALS: user-driven organizational change in healthcare. Br J Manage 2005; 16 315–28.
| Let’s be PALS: user-driven organizational change in healthcare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[23] Lieberman ES. The perils of polycentric governance of infectious disease in South Africa. Soc Sci Med 2011; 73 676–84.
| The perils of polycentric governance of infectious disease in South Africa.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21802809PubMed |
[24] Wright JSF, Dempster PG, Keen J, Allen P, Hutchings A. The new governance arrangements for NHS foundation trust hospitals: reframing governors as meta-regulators. Public Adm 2012; 90 351–69.
| The new governance arrangements for NHS foundation trust hospitals: reframing governors as meta-regulators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Proenca EJ. Community orientation in health services organizations: the concept and its implementation. Health Care Manage Rev 1998; 23 28–38.
| Community orientation in health services organizations: the concept and its implementation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK1c3lslKltg%3D%3D&md5=8d53e1446e4f7af9c3090df1bf464373CAS | 9595308PubMed |
[26] Dwyer AJ, Becker G, Hawkins C, McKenzie L, Wells M. Engaging medical staff in clinical governance: introducing new technologies and clinical practice into public hospitals. Aust Health Rev 2012; 36 43–8.
| Engaging medical staff in clinical governance: introducing new technologies and clinical practice into public hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22513019PubMed |
[27] Lee S-YD, Chen WL, Weiner BJ. Communities and hospitals: social capital, community accountability, and service provision in US community hospitals. Health Serv Res 2004; 39 1487–508.
| Communities and hospitals: social capital, community accountability, and service provision in US community hospitals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[28] Rutebemberwa E, Ekirapa-Kiracho E, Okui O, Walker D, Mutebi A, Pariyo G. Lack of effective communication between communities and hospitals in Uganda: a qualitative exploration of missing links. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9 146
| Lack of effective communication between communities and hospitals in Uganda: a qualitative exploration of missing links.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19671198PubMed |
[29] Adams SA. Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: the reflexive patient and “share-your-experience” websites. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72 1069–76.
| Sourcing the crowd for health services improvement: the reflexive patient and “share-your-experience” websites.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21414701PubMed |
