Clinical engagement: a new concept or common sense all round?
Stephen Bolsin A B , Jenny Carter A , Aileen Kitson A , Donna Walter A and Stephen Roberts AA St John of God Geelong Hospital, Myers Street, Geelong 3220, Victoria, Australia. Email: jenny.carter@sjog.org.au; aileen.kitson@sjog.org.au; donna.walter@sjog.org.au; stephen.roberts@sjog.org.au
B Corresponding author. Email: steveb@barwonhealth.org.au
Australian Health Review 43(4) 392-395 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH18010
Submitted: 15 January 2018 Accepted: 2 May 2018 Published: 19 July 2018
Abstract
Clinical engagement has supplemented clinical governance in healthcare to strengthen the contribution of medical professionals to the assessment of clinical outcomes for patients. Assessments of clinical engagement have, until now, been qualitative; this case study introduces the concept of quantitative assessment of clinical engagement by measuring the number of patients managed according to specialist society guidelines. Such an assessment engages all staff (medical, nursing, allied health and pharmacy) involved in patients receiving treatment according to such guidelines and provides an assessment of individual and organisational compliance with those guidelines. Clinical engagement is then quantified as the percentage of patients that have been documented to receive specialist society- or college-approved guideline-compliant treatment, relative to the total number who could receive such treatment, in any healthcare organisation.
What is known about the topic? Clinical engagement has emerged in recent years as a virtue to be encouraged in healthcare organisations because of its association with improved patient outcomes and employee satisfaction. Assessments have relied on repeated staff surveys in order to gauge engagement.
What does this paper add? This paper proposes a novel means of measuring clinical engagement in an organisational setting. The vision put forward is that adherence to clinical guidelines in an organisation measures clinician engagement across professional disciplines.
What are the implications for practitioners? The implications are that organisations will contribute to measuring the adherence of specialty groups of clinicians to guidelines that the clinicians select and use the data for individual and organisational accreditation.
References
[1] Scally G, Donaldson LJ. Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England. BMJ 1998; 317 61–5.| Clinical governance and the drive for quality improvement in the new NHS in England.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird N, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt HH. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 370–6.
| Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian healthcare study. Med J Aust 1995; 163 458–71.
[4] Francis, R. Independent inquiry into care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust January 2005–March 2009. London: House of Commons; 2010.
[5] Kohn CT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 1999.
[6] Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 2124–34.
| Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Classen DC, Resar R, Griffin F, Frederico F, Frankel T, Kimmel N, Whittington JC, Frankel A, Seger A, James BC. ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured. Health Affairs 2011; 30 581–9.
| ‘Global trigger tool’ shows that adverse events in hospitals may be ten times greater than previously measured.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error – the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353 i2139–44.
| Medical error – the third leading cause of death in the US.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Runciman WB, Webb RK, Helps SC, Thomas EJ, Sexton EJ, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. A comparison of iatrogenic injury studies in Australia and the USA II: reviewer behaviour and quality of care. Int J Qual Health Care 2000; 12 379–88.
| A comparison of iatrogenic injury studies in Australia and the USA II: reviewer behaviour and quality of care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001; 322 517–19.
| Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Rafter N, Hickey A, Conroy RM, Condell S, O’Connor P, Vaughan D, Walsh G, Williams DJ. The Irish National Adverse Events Study (INAES): the frequency and nature of adverse events in Irish hospitals – a retrospective record review study. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26 111–19.
| The Irish National Adverse Events Study (INAES): the frequency and nature of adverse events in Irish hospitals – a retrospective record review study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Carlisle D. Commissioning. Clinical engagement. Market forces. Health Serv J 2005; 115 28–9.
[13] Davies HT, Harrison S. Trends in doctor–manager relationships. BMJ 2003; 326 646–9.
| Trends in doctor–manager relationships.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Ellefsen B, Kim HS. Nurses’ clinical engagement: a study from an acute-care setting in Norway. Res Theory Nurs Pract 2005; 19 297–313.
| Nurses’ clinical engagement: a study from an acute-care setting in Norway.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Hogan H, Basnett I, McKee M. Consultants’ attitudes to clinical governance: barriers and incentives to engagement. Public Health 2007; 121 614–22.
| Consultants’ attitudes to clinical governance: barriers and incentives to engagement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Lowe-Lauri M. On clinical engagement. Health Serv J 2006; 116 19
[17] Parkes C. Clinical engagement. Deal or no deal? Health Serv J 2007; 117 30–1.
[18] Jorm C, Hudson R, Wallace E. Turning attention to clinician engagement in Victoria. Aust Health Rev 2017;
| Turning attention to clinician engagement in Victoria.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Wallace EM. Report of an investigation into Perinatal Outcomes at Djerriwarrh Health Services. Available at https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/Api/downloadmedia/%7B4F26487D-99F5-4512-9E37-3C9CC7F6727D%7D [verified 1 July 2018]
[20] Australian Commission on Safety and Quality. Review of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Management of a critical issue at Djerriwarrh Health Services. November 2015. Available at https://www.anmfvic.asn.au/news-and-publications/news/2015/12/07/~/media/b29a57c1427141fe81cd8f9995275276.ashx [verified 1 July 2018]
[21] Duckett S, Cuddihy M, Newnham H. Targeting zero – supporting the Victorian hospital system to eliminate avoidable harm and strengthen quality of care. Report of the review of hospital safety and quality assurance in Victoria. Victorian Government; 2016. Available at: www2.health.vic.gov.au/hospitals-and-health-services/quality-safety-service/hospital-safety-and-quality-review [verified 9 April 2018].
[22] Jorm C. Clinical engagement: scoping paper. Department of Health and Human Services; 2016. Available at: https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/policiesandguidelines/clinical-engagement-scoping-paper [verified 10 January 2018].
[23] Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, DeLong ER, Lytle BL, Brindis RG, Smith SC, Pollack CV, Newby LK, Harrington RA, Gibler WB, Ohman EM. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2006; 295 1912–20.
| Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[24] Chung SC, Sundstrom J, Gale CP, James S, Deanfield J, Wallentin L, Timmis A, Jernberg T, Hemingway H. Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries. BMJ 2015; 351 h3913
| Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[25] Zeitlin J, Manktelow BN, Piedvache A, Cuttini M, Boyle E, van Heijst A, Janusz Gadzinowski J, Van Reempts P, Huusom L, Weber T, Schmidt S, Barros H, Dillalo D, Toome L, Norman M, Blondel B, Bonet M, Draper ES, Maier RF, EPICE Research Group Use of evidence based practices to improve survival without severe morbidity for very preterm infants: results from the EPICE population based cohort. BMJ 2016; 354 i2976
| Use of evidence based practices to improve survival without severe morbidity for very preterm infants: results from the EPICE population based cohort.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Godier A, Bacus M, Kipnis E, Tavernier B, Guidat A, Rauch A, Drumez E, Susen S, Garrigue-Huet D. Compliance with evidence-based clinical management guidelines in bleeding trauma patients. Br J Anaesth 2016; 117 592–600.
| Compliance with evidence-based clinical management guidelines in bleeding trauma patients.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Therapeutic Guidelines Limited. Therapeutic guidelines: antibiotic version 15. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited; 2014.
[28] Van Der Weyden MB. The Bundaberg Hospital scandal: the need for reform in Queensland and beyond. Med J Aust 2005; 183 284–5.
[29] Bolsin SN, Cawson E, Colson ME. Revalidation is not to be feared and can be achieved by continuous objective assessment. Med J Aust 2015; 203 142–4.
| Revalidation is not to be feared and can be achieved by continuous objective assessment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
