| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Correspondence to:
Mr S Campbell, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
stephen.campbell{at}man.ac.uk
Objectives: To investigate the concept of clinical governance being advocated by primary care groups/trusts (PCG/Ts), approaches being used to implement clinical governance, and potential barriers to its successful implementation in primary care.
Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and documentation review.
Setting: Twelve purposively sampled PCG/Ts in England.
Participants: Fifty senior staff including chief executives, clinical governance leads, mental health leads, and lay board members.
Main outcome measures: Participants' perceptions of the role of clinical governance in PCG/Ts.
Results: PCG/Ts recognise that the successful implementation of clinical governance in general practice will require cultural as well as organisational changes, and the support of practices. They are focusing their energies on supporting practices and getting them involved in quality improvement activities. These activities include, but move beyond, conventional approaches to quality assessment (audit, incentives) to incorporate approaches which emphasise corporate and shared learning. PCG/Ts are also engaged in setting up systems for monitoring quality and for dealing with poor performance. Barriers include structural barriers (weak contractual levers to influence general practices), resource barriers (perceived lack of staff or money), and cultural barriers (suspicion by practice staff or problems overcoming the perceived blame culture associated with quality assessment).
Conclusion: PCG/Ts are focusing on setting up systems for implementing clinical governance which seek to emphasise developmental and supportive approaches which will engage health professionals. Progress is intentionally incremental but formidable challenges lie ahead, not least reconciling the dual role of supporting practices while monitoring (and dealing with poor) performance.
Keywords: primary care groups/trusts; clinical governance; quality improvement
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T Freeman and K Walshe Achieving progress through clinical governance? A national study of health care managers' perceptions in the NHS in England Qual. Saf. Health Care, October 1, 2004; 13(5): 335 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P Bower, S Campbell, C Bojke, and B Sibbald Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study Qual. Saf. Health Care, August 1, 2003; 12(4): 273 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S A Buetow and J Wellingham Accreditation of general practices: challenges and lessons Qual. Saf. Health Care, April 1, 2003; 12(2): 129 - 135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Checkland and M Marshall National Service Frameworks as tools for quality improvement Qual. Saf. Health Care, September 1, 2002; 11(3): 211 - 212. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S M Campbell, M Hann, J Hacker, A Durie, A Thapar, and M O Roland Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2002; 11(2): 125 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P G Shekelle Why don't physicians enthusiastically support quality improvement programmes? Qual. Saf. Health Care, March 1, 2002; 11(1): 6 - 6. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
