Measuring What Matters – Creating a Board Dashboard

February 28, 2009

The following article was published by Caroline Oliver on the Charity Channel. Caroline has kindly given permission to reproduce the article here on Healthcare Governance Review.

They say that you get what you measure. At board level, measuring what matters is vital because setting the right direction is so much at the heart of the board’s responsibility. But, at the board level, it is also vital to measure only what matters be cause boards have so little time to govern so much. Both of these points I would suggest lie behind the typical board’s attraction to things like KPI’s (key performance indicators) and balanced score cards. It is surely every board’s dream to be able to look at a single piece of paper and see exactly where their organisation is on everything that matters. The question is, is it really just a dream?

I don’t believe having such a dashboard has to be just a dream but I do believe it has to be extremely carefully designed in order to avoid some critical pitfalls. Let us think of governing an organization as analogous to flying an airplane and think of the board’s information challenge as similar to that faced by a pilot. Airplane pilots have a dashboard upon which they can see exactly where they are on key measures to do with getting to their destination such as direction, and distance as well as internal and environmental measures to do with their safety along the way such as engine temperature and coming weather systems. What is critical for the dashboard to be effective is that it is designed from the pilot’s perspective because although the pilot is responsible for everything on the plane once it is in the air, he or she cannot view everything at once. Indeed the more information the pilot has the more likely it is that he or she will miss something vital.

For boards this means that it is essential that any dashboard that gets created is created from their perspective rather than from the perspective of managers. And what this means is that the board’s perspective about what matters must be clear by which I mean explicitly stated in the form of well-organized written expectations.

I say “well organized” for one of the ways that can make it easier for the board as pilot to comprehend its dashboard is if like things are grouped together. The most important expectations from the board’s perspective are those that define the organization’s destination. Notice that what matters here is not what the organization is doing – for then you will only end up measuring busyness. What matters here is defining whose lives should be different and how and with what cost-efficiency if the organization is to be deemed successful by the board. The next most important expectations I would suggest are those that govern the organization’s exposure to internal and external risks in terms of prudence and ethics. The final group of expectations would be those that govern the operation of the board itself which could be divided between those that govern the board’s role and conduct and those that govern how the board delegates to others and monitors the proper use of that delegated authority.

To sum up, continuing with the airplane analogy, a pilot’s dashboard display needs to be grouped around matters to do with progress towards the plane’s destination, matters to do with internal and external risks it might need to deal with along the way, and matters to do with the conduct of the pilot and his or her delegation to, and monitoring of, the crew.

The problem with many of the scorecards and KPI’s that boards use is that they are designed from the perspective of managers rather than governors. Thus, they display the information that managers think that boards should know rather than the information that boards have determined for themselves that they should know. Secondly they may not clearly distinguish between measures that track progress towards the organization’s destination and measures that track everything else – leading to the often seen problem of organizational airplanes busily flying round in circles. Thirdly, it can simply produce too much stuff so the board cannot clearly see what it has and has not got and therefore might just as well have no information at all.

Which brings me back to the issue of keeping the sheer amount of information down to a manageable level when you are accountable for everything. Having the board’s expectations appropriately grouped from a board rather than management perspective certainly helps but it doesn’t do the entire trick. There is another critical point about keeping the number of board expectations down to a number that a board can realistically track. Going back to our pilot…. let us take one indicator by way of example, engine temperature. An engine could overheat for all sorts of reasons, the vast majority of which the pilot would not be expected to fix directly. Overwhelming the pilot with indicators about all the potential causes of engines overheating, given that the pilot does not have the expertise to read those indicators and do anything with them does not make a lot of sense. What the pilot needs to know is whether the engine operating at the right temperature. Knowing more only becomes necessary if it is not and the pilot needs to call on expert help to get it fixed. Similarly the board does not need to know about all that goes into meeting their expectations – what they need to know is whether or not their expectations are being met and to get their Chief Executive on the case of fixing things if not.

Boards that use the Policy Governance® approach, the principles and practice of which form the basis for much of this article, have a further tool for keeping the number of their expectations to a reasonable number and thus their dashboard comprehensive but capable of being understood. That tool is the Policy Governance policy architecture that starts from the broadest level in each area of board concern and gets progressively more specific until the point at which the board is agreed that it can responsibly accept ‘any reasonable interpretation’ of what it has already said.

So, having a board dashboard does not have to be a dream, but it is no quick and easy thing to establish if you are going to be sure that you are measuring what matters. For, if want to be as certain as possible that you are measuring what matters you need to be sure that your dashboard:
- starts from a comprehensive set of well written and well organized board expectations.
- distinguishes matters to do with progress towards your destination from matters to do with what might happen along the way
- gives you what your board must know in order to know if its expectations are being met – and no more.

Note: Policy Governance® is the registered service mark of John Carver. Used with permission. The ® after Policy Governance is a symbol used to protect the integrity of the principles and practices that make up the Policy Governance model. Its use does not imply any financial obligation to the service mark owner. The authoritative website for the Policy Governance model can be found at www.carvergovernance.com


Forthcoming ‘Healthcare Events’ events…..

February 27, 2009

The following events, mounted by Healthcare Events, are relevant to aspects of healthcare governance:

5th March: Effective Clinical Director
10th & 11th March: Clinical Outcomes 2009
31st March: Consultant Job Planning 2009
6th May: Good Practice Consent
14th May: Enhanced Appraisal and Revalidation

For further information on these and other Healthcare Events conferences, including downloadable brochures, click here.


New Occupational Health and Safety Standards published by NHS Employers

February 27, 2009

NHS Employers represents trusts in England on workforce issues and helps employers to ensure the NHS is a place where people want to work.

Health and safety is, of course, a significant workforce issue and members of the Partnership for Occupational Health and Safety in Healthcare (POSHH), a sub group of the NHS Staff Council, have produced a document of Occupational Health and Safety Standards that is available on the NHS Employers website.

Very similar to the old NHS controls assurance standards, the document pulls together legal requirements, examples of good practice and practical guidance on meeting standards for the following key areas of occupational health and safety:

- Management of health and safety
- Provision of an occupational health service
- Musculoskeletal disorders/manual handling
- Violence and agression
- Slips, trips and falls
- Stress
- COSHH general requirements
- Prevention and control (Communicable diseases, needlestick management/blood-borne viruses, latex and healthcare acquired infection, including hand washing)
- Contractors and sub-contractors
- Fire
- Working Time Directive
- Pregnancy and new mothers
- Display Screen Equipment

The Occupational Health and Safety Standardswill both help trusts meet their legal obligations, and achieve the health and safety aspects of the Healthcare Commissions Standards for Better Health; NHS Litigation Authority standards and the Improving Working Lives initiative. The standards also provide a useful checklist for those involved in the commissioning of care.

The standards can be freely downloaded here.


Listening, Improving, Responding: New Department of Health guidance on dealing with complaints

February 27, 2009

According to the Department of Health (DH), “One of the key features of high performing organisations is the way that they respond to customers who are unhappy about the service that they have received.”

From April 2009 of a common approach to handling complaints in the NHS and adult social care will be introduced and this provides an opportunity for all organisations to review their local systems so they can both respond flexibly to complaints, concerns and complements and feed the resulting lessons into their work on learning from patients’ feedback to improve services.

The guide Listening, Improving, Responding provides a practical resource that complaints managers and their teams can use to help design excellent customer care systems locally and to support clinical and administrative staff in implementing change.

The new approach focuses on the complainant and enables organisations to tailor a flexible response that seeks to resolve the complainant’s specific concerns. It is based on the principles of good complaints handling, which have been published by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman and endorsed by the Local Government Ombudsman:

1. Getting it right
2. Being customer focused
3. Being open and accountable
4. Acting fairly and proportionately
5. Putting things right
6. Seeking continuous improvement

Download the guide Listening, Improving, Responding here.


Health Care Risk Report Vol 15 Issue 3 – February 2009

February 26, 2009

This issue of Health Care Risk Report (HCRR) features, among other matters, the NHS’s commitment to ‘being open’. As Pat Leonard, editor of Health Care Risk Report (HCRR) comments in the journal’s Leader column, “Being harmed by healthcare treatment, or knowing a members of your family has been harmed in this way, is very distressing. However, many people also say that this distress is worsened by the way that healthcare organisations behave in aftermath of such an event. People want an explanation of what went wrong, and an apology – but this must be a real apology.”

Interesting, then, that the principles of the National Patient Safety Agency’s Being Open guidance are “acknowledging, apologising and explaining when things go wrong.” Yet the NHS Litigation Authority’s 2007 circular on apologies and explanations warns that “care should be taken in the dissemination of explanations so as to avoid future litigation risks.” To get an insight into this issue, read the article by Peter Walsh - CEO of Action against Medical Accidents - who asks the question “How real is the NHS commitment to Being open?”

Interestingly, this issue of HCRR reports on a review of the NPSA’s Being open guidance carried out by Professor Albert Wu from the USA’s Johns Hopkins University. He makes six recommendations, including that “NHS boards of directors should ensure that Being open is supported by non-punitive local policy and by staff training. 

Other matters appearing in this issue of HCRR include articles on:

- why NHS trusts need to address the issue of failure to detect and act on the signs of deterioration among hospital patients;
- patient safety in mental health;
- how to measure and improve in the context of England’s Patient Safety First Campaign;
- analysing falls management using failure mode and effect analysis;
- standards for occupational health and safety, including managing risk; and
- what the latest Health and Safety (Offences) Act 2008 means for the NHS.

If your organisation does not currently subscribe to HCRR then please consider doing so. A subscription form can be downloaded here. You can also subscribe to the free ‘Health Care Risk Report e-zine’ newsletter.

Declaration of interest: Stuart Emslie, editor of Healthcare Governance Review, is on the editorial advisory board of, and is a regular contributor to, Health Care Risk Report.


Medical doctors are most trusted profession

February 26, 2009

A recent survey by Ipsos MORI, commissioned by the Royal College of Physicians 10 years after the Shipman case, shows that doctors are the profession most trusted by the general public.

More than 2,000 adults were asked by Ipsos MORI to say whether they generally trusted 16 different types of people to tell the truth or not. More than ninety per cent of the public (92%) said they trusted doctors to tell the truth when the survey was conducted in late 2008. Doctors were closely followed by teachers (87%). The next most trusted were: professors (79%), judges (78%) and clergymen/priests (74%), completing the top five.

Sir Robert Worcester, Founder of Ipsos MORI, said: “It is a media myth that people are losing trust………in doctors. In 1983, 82 per cent said they trusted doctors to tell the truth; now this is up ten points, to 92 per cent.”

For the full results of the poll, click here.


Participate in ISQua 2009 quality conference, October, Dublin – Governance & Leadership track

February 24, 2009

Are you and/or your organisation interested in speaking or presenting a poster at one of the world’s biggest annual healthcare quality conferences 11-14 October this year in Dublin?

The 2009 annual conference of the International Society for Quality in Healthcare (ISQua) is focusing on the highly topical issue of designing quality into healthcare organisations. This is a major annual event attracting up to 1000 delegates and speakers from all over the world.

One of the tracks for the conference is ‘Governance and Leadership’ and Stuart Emslie, editor of Healthcare Governance Review, is assisting ISQua with this aspect. The key question being addressed by this track is “How is the quality and safety function best designed into the organisation construct of our Health Systems at National, Regional and Local levels?”

Possible areas of focus include:

· Where does the quality (including safety and risk management) function fit into Health Organisations at Corporate level and what is its role?
· How does the delivery system organise for quality?
· How does the Corporate quality function relate to the delivery system i.e. National, Regional and Local level inter-relationships
· How do we design the system such that roles, authority, responsibility and accountability for quality is clear and unambiguous?
· Within this framework, how are standards and quality, as well as safety and risk management, assured?

For further information or to submit an abstract (deadline 20 March 2009) click here or, alternatively, contact Stuart Emslie directly on svemslie@aol.co.uk or by telephone on +44(0)7932376562.


Spotlight on learning from complaints

February 19, 2009

The Healthcare Commission has released a report about its experiences dealing with complaints in the NHS, and recommends that trust boards oversee the complaints system in their organisations.

According to the Commission, “Complaints are…..inherently negative feedback for organisations. However, the process of dealing with them should be viewed as a valuable and positive opportunity for the NHS to learn from mistakes and bring about real improvements in services.”

The report, titled Spotlight on complaints, makes 12 key recommendations to the NHS:

1. Acknowledge the person’s right to complain.
2. Ensure that the complaint is assessed upon receipt, so that any concerns about a risk to the safe care of other patients can be identified promptly.
3. Clarify what the person’s concerns are and manage expectations about possible outcomes to the investigation of the complaint.
4. Consider the various options for resolving the complaint – for example, a meeting or reimbursement of costs.
5. Ensure that the person is kept informed of progress throughout the life of the complaint.
6. Confirm to the person what support is available to assist in making a complaint – for example, the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service (ICAS).
7. Take statements from, and interview if necessary, those staff involved in the events leading up to the complaint. This should be done as soon as possible, so that events are still fresh in the memory.
8. Where necessary, obtain clinical advice on the matters raised. This advice must have a high degree of independence – for example, by obtaining advice from the trust’s medical director or from a clinician at another trust.
9. Ensure that any letters to the person making the complaint are written in plain English and are as free as possible of clinical or other technical terminology.
10. Offer an apology if appropriate.
11. Ensure that general learning is taken from specific complaints and is embedded into the system of care for the future.
12. Ensure that the boards of trusts are satisfying themselves that all the above are happening.

Download the full report, Spotlight on complaints, here.


One day introductory Policy Governance seminar by Caroline Oliver – 22 April, Oxford

February 18, 2009

Caroline Oliver will be running a one day Policy Governance seminar for NHS board members on Wednesday 22 April in Oxford.

Policy Governance is, according to Sir Adrian Cadbury, the most conceptually coherent and integrated system of governance for boards. Southend University NHS foundation trust are using Policy Governance and other NHS organisations are beginning to follow.

The cost of the seminar is £75 (+VAT), which includes a working lunch.

Caroline is running the same seminar in Yorkshire on 11 March, but it is booked out.

Places in Oxford are limited. To reserve your place and explore the programme for the day click here.


Everything you need to know about corporate governance in healthcare – Lunchtime seminar, 27 March, Birkbeck, London University

February 15, 2009

The London Centre for Corporate Governance and Ethics, in association with SpiroNicholson, an Organisation Development consultancy, are running a series of lunchtime seminars looking at corporate governance in a range of sectors.

On Friday 27 March 2009 there will be a seminar looking at corporate governance in the healthcare sector. The seminar will address the three most pressing governance issues in healthcare, offer governance frameworks relevant to your organisation, and give  you the chance to learn from others in healthcare about best practice.

The seminar will take place from 12.30-1.30pm in the Council Room at Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Street. You can access a map here.

The seminar costs £40 for non-Birkbeck Alumni and £10 for existing and former Birkbeck students. Tea and coffee will be provided.

For further information and to reserve your place, contact Dr Andrew Tucker at Andrew.tucker@pol-soc.bbk.ac.uk


Forthcoming HSJ Governance Challenge and 5th annual NHS Governance conference

February 14, 2009

Looking ahead to 2009 and beyond, immense challenges can be seen which will test even the most robust NHS governance systems. The Health Service Journal (HSJ) has lined up a number of exciting events in March and June. Click here for further information on the HSJ Governance Challenge and pre-study day Fundamentals of NHS Governance (24/25 March 2009 in Birmingham) and click here for details about the 5th annual HSJ NHS Governance Conference (23-25 June, London). Don’t miss these important events.


FREE on your PC – A 45 minute online HSJ Information Assurance seminar, 12 February 2009

February 9, 2009

The Health Service Journal (HSJ) is running a free 45 minute online Quality Information Assurance seminar at 09.30 on Thursday 12 February. All you need to take part is a broadband-connected computer.

The seminar will provide an understanding of Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) and will explore the implications of Darzi’s Review and the Health Informatics Review.

Leading experts will discuss the pertinent and timely issues you face and offer strategies to ensure your information governance, compliance and risk procedures are robust and fit-for-the-future.

According to the HSJ, the following expert panellists will be joining in the discussion:

Professor Michael Thick, Chief Clinical Officer, NHS Connecting for Health
Clare Sanderson, Director of Information Governance, NHS Information Centre for health and social care
John Madsen, Data Quality Programme Manager, Standards and Classifications, NHS Information Centre for health and social care

As the HSJ says, “Don’t miss out – Register your free place today, at: www.hsj-informationassurance.com


NHSLA issues 2009/10 risk management standards

February 8, 2009

The NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) has issued updated risk management standards for acute trusts, Primary Care Trusts (PCTS) and independent sector providers of NHS care.

There continues to be five key standards: Governance; Competent & Capable Workforce; Safe Environment; Clinical Care; and Learning from Experience.

Unfortunately, the NHSLA continues to confuse governance with management. This is evidenced in the ‘Governance’ standards, which includes, among others, the following criteria:

- There is an organisation-wide risk management strategy which has been approved by the board.
- The organisation has approved documentation which describes the process for developing organisation-wide procedural documents.
- The organisation has approved terms of reference for the high level committee(s) with overarching responsibility for risk.
- The organisation has approved documentation which describes the process for preparing and responding to the recommendations and requirements arising from external agency visits, inspections and accreditations specific to the organisation.
- The organisation has approved documentation which describes the process for managing the risks associated with clinical records in all media.
- The organisation has approved documentation which describes the process for ensuring that all clinical staff (temporary and permanent) are registered with the appropriate professional body.
- The organisation has approved documentation which describes the process for ensuring that all appropriate employment checks are undertaken for all staff (temporary and permanent).

All of the above are, of course, issues relating to organisational management and not governance.

Notwithstanding the NHSLA’s ‘misunderstandings’ on the distinction between governance and management, and their consequential contribution to the confusion and muddle that surrounds NHS governance matters, there are many aspects to the standards, whilst highly prescriptive, that will no doubt be welcomed by many NHS organisations.

Download the updated risk management standards in WORD format here.


Guidance issued on Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS)

February 8, 2009

The Department of Health in England (DH) has issued finalised guidance on the national standards for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS). PROMs are measures of a patient’s health status or health related quality of life. They are typically short, self completed questionnaires, which measure the patients’ health status or health related quality of life at a single point in time.

Healthcare Governance Review believes that the NHS exists, fundamentally, so that people receiving NHS-funded care realise the best possible health outcomes within available resources. Thus, actively seeking the views of patients who experience the care is critical in any governance-level evaluation by providers, commissioners and the Department of Health of they extent to which the NHS is properly managed and governed.

The improvement of clinical quality and outcomes for patients is at the heart of recent NHS reforms. For example, the Patient Choice reforms envisage patients making informed decisions over their healthcare based on quality information.

Data collected routinely by way of PROMs will, according to the DH, improve the available information on clinical quality. A Hip replacement questionnaire, for example, compares patients’ own assessments of their mobility and pain before and after a hip operation, creating a measure of clinical success.

The DH sees other beneficial application of PROMS data, including its use to:

• evaluate the relative clinical quality of Providers of elective procedures. PROMs data can be used by clinicians, managers, regulators and PCT Commissioners to benchmark Providers’ performance. It can be used for clinical audit and it can be used by patients and GPs exercising choice,
• research what works. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different technical approaches to care can be evaluated using PROMs in association with other measures,
• assess the appropriateness of referrals to secondary care. PROMs data can be used to establish whether referrals for elective procedures are appropriate by examining variation in baseline PROMs scores across the country,
• support the reduction of inequalities, and
• empower commissioners. PCT Commissioners can use the data to establish the quality of services, which they are contracting with Providers for.

Furthermore, the DH intends to link payments to PROMs data by making payments to hospitals conditional on the quality of care given to patients as well as the volume of care delivered. The DH has previously stated that a range of quality measures covering safety (including cleanliness and infection rates), clinical outcomes, patient experience and patient’s views about the success of their treatment (i.e. PROMS) will be used for this purpose

Download the latest DH PROMS guidance here.


Hospitals to adopt meat-free menus in effort to reduce carbon emissions?

February 4, 2009

As reported in the Guardian (26 January 2009) it appears that hospitals will, as part of a wider NHS carbon reduction strategy, take meat off the menus.

Apparently, the NHS accounts for 3% of all carbon emissions in England and cutting meat from the menu would, as implied by the Guardian article, result in a reduction in methane emissions from cattle and sheep! Presumably this is because if the NHS didn’t buy meat products, this would reduce the number of cattle and sheep required to satisfy the NHS’s demand for meat?

For further information on this and other proposed strategies to reduce the NHS’s carbon emissions, read the full Guardian article here.

hgr28_web


A group of outstanding individuals does not necessarily constitute an effective board

February 1, 2009

Too many boards are an assembly of impressive individuals rather than an effective team according to Professor Colin Coulson-Thomas.

His surveys and consulting work with boards have revealed that: “A group of outstanding individuals does not necessarily constitute an effective board. Board performance depends upon the interaction of particular people and personalities in the boardroom context. Membership changes can alter the chemistry.”

Coulson-Thomas finds: “New directors tend to be selected to complement the qualities of existing board members and improve a board’s operating dynamics. The preferred candidate might be the individual who best balances the team, rather than the person who is technically the most proficient. The deficiencies of individual directors can often be compensated for by contributions of other board members, allowing people to play to their strengths.”

He further finds that ”Good direction is often about thinking rather than doing. Aspiring directors should really understand the difference between being a professional, a manager, an owner or shareholder and a director. Each of these roles can involve a particular perspective and certain responsibilities. People need to be alert to potential conflicts of interest.”

For more information, get a copy of Professor Coulson-Thomas’s book Developing Directors – A handbook for building an effective boardroom team here.