共享临床治理安排之间的NHS和独立的急性医院在英格兰:从高级领导人的全国调查结果。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Gemma Stringer, Jane Ferguson, Kieran Walshe, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Michael Anderson, Karen Bloor, Eleanor Gee, Nils Gutacker
{"title":"共享临床治理安排之间的NHS和独立的急性医院在英格兰:从高级领导人的全国调查结果。","authors":"Gemma Stringer, Jane Ferguson, Kieran Walshe, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Michael Anderson, Karen Bloor, Eleanor Gee, Nils Gutacker","doi":"10.1177/13558196261431315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesTo present the findings from a national survey of senior leaders in NHS and independent hospitals in England concerning the effectiveness of shared arrangements for clinical governance. To provide a comprehensive overview of shared arrangements for the oversight of consultants' practice, processes for appraisal and revalidation, and the management of significant concerns. The results from this study will improve understanding of the practical functioning of clinical governance processes at the interface between the NHS and the independent sector.MethodsBetween December 2023 and April 2024, an online survey was distributed to senior leads with governance responsibilities in NHS and independent hospitals in England.Results320 responses were received (response rate 42%), 235 from individuals working in NHS trusts (response rate 40%) and 85 from individuals in independent hospitals (response rate 48%). Respondents reported that some clinical governance arrangements are established across both sectors, with some relationships characterised as positive and relatively strong. However, relationships often depended on goodwill, personal connections, and consultant probity, rather than the systematic implementation of recommended processes. Respondents expressed concerns regarding the non-mandatory and unregulated nature of processes for sharing concerns, believing this led to insufficient resources and challenges in verifying information. They called for improved data quality, better communication and information sharing and more robust and formalised processes.ConclusionsShared clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors are in place in some but not all of the organisations where respondents' consultants worked. This raises concerns about progress towards implementing the Paterson inquiry recommendations, including access to consultants' whole practice information and sharing concerns about consultants working across different providers. The findings may also hold relevance for international audiences where medical staff work across multiple healthcare providers. Further empirical research is needed to compare clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors, and suggest how shared clinical governance can be organised to assure the quality and safety of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"234-244"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13589108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared clinical governance arrangements between NHS and independent acute hospitals in England: Findings from a national survey of senior leaders.\",\"authors\":\"Gemma Stringer, Jane Ferguson, Kieran Walshe, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Michael Anderson, Karen Bloor, Eleanor Gee, Nils Gutacker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13558196261431315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectivesTo present the findings from a national survey of senior leaders in NHS and independent hospitals in England concerning the effectiveness of shared arrangements for clinical governance. To provide a comprehensive overview of shared arrangements for the oversight of consultants' practice, processes for appraisal and revalidation, and the management of significant concerns. The results from this study will improve understanding of the practical functioning of clinical governance processes at the interface between the NHS and the independent sector.MethodsBetween December 2023 and April 2024, an online survey was distributed to senior leads with governance responsibilities in NHS and independent hospitals in England.Results320 responses were received (response rate 42%), 235 from individuals working in NHS trusts (response rate 40%) and 85 from individuals in independent hospitals (response rate 48%). Respondents reported that some clinical governance arrangements are established across both sectors, with some relationships characterised as positive and relatively strong. However, relationships often depended on goodwill, personal connections, and consultant probity, rather than the systematic implementation of recommended processes. Respondents expressed concerns regarding the non-mandatory and unregulated nature of processes for sharing concerns, believing this led to insufficient resources and challenges in verifying information. They called for improved data quality, better communication and information sharing and more robust and formalised processes.ConclusionsShared clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors are in place in some but not all of the organisations where respondents' consultants worked. This raises concerns about progress towards implementing the Paterson inquiry recommendations, including access to consultants' whole practice information and sharing concerns about consultants working across different providers. The findings may also hold relevance for international audiences where medical staff work across multiple healthcare providers. Further empirical research is needed to compare clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors, and suggest how shared clinical governance can be organised to assure the quality and safety of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"234-244\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13589108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196261431315\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/3/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196261431315","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的介绍一项针对英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)和独立医院高层领导的全国性调查结果,该调查涉及临床治理共享安排的有效性。就监督顾问业务、评估和重新确认程序以及重大问题管理的共同安排提供全面概述。从这项研究的结果将提高临床治理过程的实际功能的理解在NHS和独立部门之间的接口。方法在2023年12月至2024年4月期间,对英国NHS和独立医院负责管理的高级领导进行在线调查。结果共收到320份回复(回复率为42%),235份来自NHS信托机构的个人(回复率为40%),85份来自独立医院的个人(回复率为48%)。答复者报告说,在两个部门之间建立了一些临床治理安排,其中一些关系的特点是积极的和相对较强的。然而,关系往往依赖于善意、个人关系和咨询师的诚信,而不是系统地执行所推荐的流程。答复者对分享关切过程的非强制性和不受管制的性质表示关切,认为这导致资源不足和核实信息方面的挑战。他们呼吁改善数据质量,更好地沟通和信息共享,以及更健全和正式的程序。结论共享临床治理安排之间的NHS和独立部门是到位的一些组织,但不是所有的受访者的顾问工作。这引起了人们对实施帕特森调查建议的进展的关注,包括访问顾问的整个实践信息,以及分享顾问在不同供应商之间工作的担忧。研究结果也可能对医务人员在多个医疗保健提供者之间工作的国际受众具有相关性。需要进一步的实证研究来比较NHS和独立部门之间的临床治理安排,并建议如何组织共享临床治理以确保护理的质量和安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shared clinical governance arrangements between NHS and independent acute hospitals in England: Findings from a national survey of senior leaders.

ObjectivesTo present the findings from a national survey of senior leaders in NHS and independent hospitals in England concerning the effectiveness of shared arrangements for clinical governance. To provide a comprehensive overview of shared arrangements for the oversight of consultants' practice, processes for appraisal and revalidation, and the management of significant concerns. The results from this study will improve understanding of the practical functioning of clinical governance processes at the interface between the NHS and the independent sector.MethodsBetween December 2023 and April 2024, an online survey was distributed to senior leads with governance responsibilities in NHS and independent hospitals in England.Results320 responses were received (response rate 42%), 235 from individuals working in NHS trusts (response rate 40%) and 85 from individuals in independent hospitals (response rate 48%). Respondents reported that some clinical governance arrangements are established across both sectors, with some relationships characterised as positive and relatively strong. However, relationships often depended on goodwill, personal connections, and consultant probity, rather than the systematic implementation of recommended processes. Respondents expressed concerns regarding the non-mandatory and unregulated nature of processes for sharing concerns, believing this led to insufficient resources and challenges in verifying information. They called for improved data quality, better communication and information sharing and more robust and formalised processes.ConclusionsShared clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors are in place in some but not all of the organisations where respondents' consultants worked. This raises concerns about progress towards implementing the Paterson inquiry recommendations, including access to consultants' whole practice information and sharing concerns about consultants working across different providers. The findings may also hold relevance for international audiences where medical staff work across multiple healthcare providers. Further empirical research is needed to compare clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors, and suggest how shared clinical governance can be organised to assure the quality and safety of care.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书