Loughborough University postgraduate programme in healthcare governance – next intake November 2012

February 7, 2011

This well established and popular part-time postgraduate programme in healthcare governance, run by Loughborough University School of Business and economics, will take its next intake in November 2012.

The programme accepts anyone interested in healthcare governance and with suitable qualifications and/or experience to undertake postgraduate level study. It is not always a necessity to have a first degree.

Students can study for a postgraduate certificate, postgraduate diploma or Master of Science (MSc) degree in healthcare governance. The full MSc degree takes a minimum of 2 years by part-time study and includes modules on corporate governance in healthcare, clinical governance (including patient safety) and managing healthcare risk, together with a dissertation on any healthcare governance related topic.

For further information, click here.


Health Care Risk Report Volume 15 Issue 4 March 2009

March 8, 2009

According to the Leader page, this issue of Health Care Risk Report (HCRR) carries three views from three different experts on the question of how patient safety and clinical risk management do (or do not) fit together. There seems to be a perception among some people that patient safety is somehow replacing clinical risk management and that the latter has run its course.

According to HCRR editor, pat Anderson, “Patient safety has brought a welcome focus on the individual patient, enthusing staff who are more focused on people than figures and statistics. It offers new techniques and tools along with training course an, now, the national patient safety campaigns. The emphasis on measurement means that many trusts, particularly those involved in the Safer Patients Initiative, have been able to show real improvements in safety. However, all this does not invalidate the tried and tested techniques of risk management, which should not be left by the wayside. The wider universe of risk – encompassing everything from staff safety to business interruption – must not be forgotten. Hopefully most NHS organisations are sensible enough to encourage risk management and patient safety teams to work together for the benefit of all.”

Other matters appearing in this issue of HCRR include:

– An article by John Tingle, based on two Healthcare Commission report, that outlines what should be done to improve quality of care in accident and emergency departments.
– The first of two articles by Dr Tayza Aung, a GP from Essex, who asks whether the government’s reforms, or a drive from within the medical profession, are most likely to result in the desired improvements to the quality of primary care.
– The first of a two-part series that provides an overview of the systems and processes involved in managing the risks associated with research done in the NHS.
– An article describing what the changes to victims’ rights mean for the NHS.
– The second of two articles looking at decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

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.


A governance framework for differentiating between research, audit and service review activities

January 30, 2009

Some readers may be interested in a paper from a 2007 issue of Clinician in Management (now the International Journal of Clinical Leadership) that describes a practical governance framework that attempts to ensure that obstacles are not put in the way of progressing with innovative clinical quality improvement projects.

With the advent of evidence-based practice and the need to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of service provision, healthcare practitioners find themselves having to comply with increasingly complex governance requirements surrounding the collection of data within an NHS organisation. A number of authors have suggested that the administrative burden that accompanies clinical effectiveness activities could in itself stifle innovations in practice. Putting obstacles in the way of ‘quality improvement’ projects could lead to poor practice and a potential reduction in the much needed service developments. This anxiety has to be balanced by the need to fully comply with research governance processes and ensure ethical considerations apply to both research activities and service evaluations.

Debate exists about the differentiation between such activities, whether the activity is research requiring full governance, audit or service development improvement projects. This paper describes the work undertaken at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to develop a framework for classification of data collection activities, by using ‘simple rules’ and subsequent ‘rule in questions’. The paper discusses how this framework ensures that appropriate ethical considerations take place for all activities and how an NHS organisation can reduce the risk of contravening research governance and local clinical governance requirements whilst still encouraging quality improvement projects.

The full paper can be purchased here.


In the medical research world, “both researchers and journals are to blame for inconsistent disclosure of conflicts of interest”

May 20, 2008
A novel study suggests that medical researchers are inconsistent about disclosing financial conflicts of interest, and journals are inconsistent about how they use or publish disclosure information.
 
The investigators say that the findings call into question the whole purpose and efficacy of a process intended to preserve integrity and eliminate bias in medical literature.

For further information, click here.