Clinical governance in New Zealand: perceptions from registered health professionals in health care delivery compared with social insurance.

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.