Clinical governance in New Zealand: perceptions from registered health professionals in health care delivery compared with social insurance
Inga O’Brien
A E , Roy de Groot A B , Vera Champion A and Robin Gauld C D
A The Accident Compensation Corporation, Wellington, New Zealand. Email: vera.champion@acc.co.nz
B Present address: Ministry of Health, Wellington, New Zealand. Email: Roy.de.groot@health.govt.nz
C Otago Business School, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Email: Robin.gauld@otago.ac.nz
D Centre for Health Systems and Technology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
E Corresponding author. Email: Inga.obrien@acc.co.nz
Australian Health Review 45(6) 753-760 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH21102
Submitted: 25 March 2021 Accepted: 13 May 2021 Published: 3 August 2021
Abstract
Objective Effective clinical governance can improve delivery of health outcomes. This exploratory study compared perceptions of clinical governance development held by registered health professionals employed by two different but interrelated health organisations in the broader New Zealand (NZ) health system. Most staff in public sector healthcare service delivery organisations (i.e. District Health Boards (DHBs)) are registered health professionals, whereas these clinical staff represent a small minority (5%) in social insurance organisations (i.e. the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)). Given these different contexts, comparison of results from three surveys of clinical governance perceptions identified key learnings for the development of clinical governance.
Methods The Clinical Governance Development Index (CGDI) was administered to registered health professional staff in NZ DHBs and ACC, at different time points. The data were explored, compared and reported.
Results Responses to survey items completed by NZ DHB staff and registered health professionals employed by ACC were compared. For each administration, there was a similar profile of positive responses across the seven CGDI items. The 2020 ACC survey results for one item were clearly different. This item asked about perceptions of full and active involvement in organisational processes and decision making (i.e. clinical engagement).
Conclusions Perceptions of registered health professionals working in the NZ public sector delivering health services were compared with those held by staff employed by a NZ social insurer predominantly commissioning and influencing care. The results indicated similar levels of clinical governance development. Clinical governance development in the ACC context can benefit from clear communication, building strong supporting structures and greater management–clinical provider partnerships. Clinical governance development drives health outcomes and regular measurement of developmental progress can provide momentum. There is room across the NZ health system to raise awareness and leverage clinical governance to deliver improved health outcomes.
What is known about the topic? Little is known about the perceptions held by registered health professionals employed by social insurance organisations. There are no published comparative studies exploring differences in perceptions between registered health professionals across two different organisational contexts, both with a goal of improving health outcomes.
What does this paper add? Effective clinical governance drives coordinated, quality systems that promote optimal health outcomes. Social insurance organisations predominantly commission healthcare providers to deliver health outcomes. Although registered health professionals employed by social insurance organisations represent a small total number of staff, their perspective on clinical governance, as reported via survey, indicated there is most to be gained in the development of partnerships between management and clinical providers. This exploratory study fills a gap in the existing clinical governance development literature and evidence base.
What are the implications for practitioners? Any health organisation can leverage clinical governance to deliver improved health outcomes. Effective clinical governance interventions are targeted to specific organisational context and culture. For ACC, a clear definition, enhanced management-clinical provider partnerships and strong supporting structures or organisational arrangements can be further developed. The survey results indicated that a focus on management–clinical provider partnerships is a clear priority for ACC clinical governance development. Partnerships based in empowered collaboration require greater clinical engagement, as well as increased capability for aligning with organisational priorities. Effective clinical governance development requires attention to context and culture. It can improve delivery of health outcomes.
References
[1] The Accident Compensation Corporation. ACC Annual Report/Pūrongo-a-tau, 2020. Wellington: The Accident Compensation Corporation; 2020. Available at: https://www.acc.co.nz/assets/corporate-documents/annual-report-2020-acc8234.pdf [verified 9 July 2021].[2] Donaldson LJ, Gray J. Clinical Governance: A quality duty for health organisations. Qual Health Care 1998; 7 s37–44.
| 10339034PubMed |
[3] Scally GLD. 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 |
[4] Travaglia J, Debono D, Spigelman A, Braithwaite J. Clinical governance: a review of key concepts in the literature. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2011; 16 62–77.
| Clinical governance: a review of key concepts in the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Health Quality & Safety Commission. Clinical governance: Guidance for health and disability providers, 2017. Wellington: HQSC; 2017. Available at: https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/publication/2851/ [verified 9 July 2021].
[6] Gauld R, Horsburgh S. Has the clinical governance development agenda stalled? Perceptions of New Zealand medical professionals in 2012 and 2017. Health Policy 2020; 124 183–8.
| Has the clinical governance development agenda stalled? Perceptions of New Zealand medical professionals in 2012 and 2017.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31924343PubMed |
[7] Brennan N, Flynn M. Differentiating clinical governance, clinical management and clinical practice. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2013; 18 114–31.
| Differentiating clinical governance, clinical management and clinical practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Halligan A, Donaldson L. Implementing clinical governance: Turning vision into reality. BMJ 2001; 322 1413–7.
| Implementing clinical governance: Turning vision into reality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11397753PubMed |
[9] Dorgan S, Layton D, Bloom N, Homkes R, Sadun R, Van Reenen J. Management in healthcare: Why good practice really matters. London: McKinsey and Company/London School of Economics; 2010.
[10] Goodall AH. Physician-leaders and hospital performance: Is there an association? Soc Sci Med 2011; 73 535–9.
| Physician-leaders and hospital performance: Is there an association?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21802184PubMed |
[11] Paulus RA, Davis K, Steele G. Continuous innovation in health care: Implications of the Geisinger experience. Health Aff 2008; 27 1235–45.
| Continuous innovation in health care: Implications of the Geisinger experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Angood P, Birk S. The value of physician leadership. Tampa, FL: American College of Physician Executives; 2014.
[13] Sadun R, Bloom N, Van Reenen J. Why do we undervalue competent management? Great leadership and brilliant strategy won’t succeed without operational excellence. Harv Bus Rev 2017; 95 120–7.
[14] Movsisyan A, Arnold L, Evans R, Hallingberg B, Moore G, O’Cathain A, et al Adapting evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance. Implement Sci 2019; 14 105
| Adapting evidence-informed complex population health interventions for new contexts: a systematic review of guidance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31847920PubMed |
[15] Gauld R, Horsburgh S, Flynn MA, Carey D, Crowley P. Do different approaches to clinical governance development and implementation make a difference? Findings from Ireland and New Zealand. J Health Organ Manag 2017; 31 682–95.
| Do different approaches to clinical governance development and implementation make a difference? Findings from Ireland and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29187084PubMed |
[16] Chambers N, Sheaff R, Mahon A, Byng R, Mannion R, Charles N, et al The practice of commissioning healthcare from a private provider: learning from an in-depth case study. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13 S4
| The practice of commissioning healthcare from a private provider: learning from an in-depth case study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23735082PubMed |
[17] Jensen M, Meckling W. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J Financ Econ 1976; 3 305–60.
| Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Gauld R. Clinical governance development: learning from the New Zealand experience. Postgrad Med J 2014; 90 43–7.
| Clinical governance development: learning from the New Zealand experience.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24198340PubMed |
[19] Gauld RSH. Clinical governance assessment project: Final report on a national health professional survey and site visits to 19 New Zealand DHBs, 2012. Dunedin: Centre for Health Systems, University of Otago; 2012.
[20] Beales D, Fried K, Nicholas M, Blyth F, Finniss D, Moseley GL. Management of musculoskeletal pain in a compensable environment: Implementation of helpful and unhelpful Models of Care in supporting recovery and return to work. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2016; 30 445–67.
| Management of musculoskeletal pain in a compensable environment: Implementation of helpful and unhelpful Models of Care in supporting recovery and return to work.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27886941PubMed |
[21] Franche R-L, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. J Occup Rehabil 2005; 15 525–42.
| Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16254753PubMed |
[22] Harris I, Mulford J, Solomon M, van Gelder JM, Young J. Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2005; 293 1644–52.
| Association between compensation status and outcome after surgery: a meta-analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15811984PubMed |
[23] Gauld R, Horsburgh S, Brown J. The clinical governance development index: results from a New Zealand study. BMJ Qual Saf 2011; 20 947–52.
| The clinical governance development index: results from a New Zealand study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21653936PubMed |
[24] Gauld R, Horsburgh S. Did healthcare professional perspectives on the quality and safety environment in New Zealand public hospitals change from 2012 to 2017? J Health Organ Manag 2020; 34 775–88.
| Did healthcare professional perspectives on the quality and safety environment in New Zealand public hospitals change from 2012 to 2017?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32979044PubMed |
[25] Som C. Making sense of clinical governance at different levels in NHS hospital trusts. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2009; 14 98–112.
| Making sense of clinical governance at different levels in NHS hospital trusts.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[26] Staniland K. A sociological ethnographic study of clinical governance implementation in one NHS hospital trust. Clinical Governance: An International Journal 2009; 14 271–80.
| A sociological ethnographic study of clinical governance implementation in one NHS hospital trust.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[27] Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Tabrizi J, Azami-Aghdash S. Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2014; 20 793–802.
| Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25130323PubMed |
[28] Buja A, Toffanin R, Claus M, Ricciardi W, Damiani G, Baldo V, et al Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review. BMJ Open 2018; 8 e020626
| Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30056378PubMed |
