Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most improved of all?
This article examines the rhetoric and reality of clinical governance in the United Kingdom using the analogy of the New Year pantomime. The authors argue that processes to improve the quality of health care services provision have been in place for many years. Although the terms and language used to describe these processes have, over time, changed, the task remains the same. Clinical governance is the latest in a long list of such changes. The tensions involved in working towards achieving centrally driven targets and performance standards whilst at the same time addressing the huge modernization agenda are explored through managerial and clinical experiences. Whilst the clinical governance approach has undoubtedly achieved improvements, the sustainability of these is questioned. Organisational responses to the current system are explored and a glimpse into the future is given, as the present structures and processes change in 2004. The authors argue that practitioners and managers, who may have survived the current arrangements, might have considerably more difficulty in doing so in the future.
Warne
Tony
T
Department of Health Care Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Nurse Lecturer, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. a.r.warne@mmu.ac.uk
McAndrew
Susan
S
D003659:Decision Making, Organizational; D005544:Forecasting; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D015279:Organizational Culture; D009936:Organizational Innovation; D009937:Organizational Objectives; D010686:Philosophy, Medical; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D013222:State Medicine / Q000458:organization & administration*; D017749:Total Quality Management / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006113:United Kingdom