Resources

What is the role of clinical governance in a crisis? Does it fall away, or does it become even more important? And what can we learn about clinical governance from a crisis?

Mitigating risk is only one aspect of clinical governance – this is a minimum, since clinical governance is about aspiring to deliver best possible care. But what if circumstances are so dire that providing the best possible care is to mitigate the risk of harm? We might see this in a war zone, for example. Do our aspirations shift with our priorities – or does the way we measure quality completely change?
 

We have previously drawn a parallel between decisions made by government in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, and in clinical governance - for example, how government decisions have responded to risk.  Six months later, Australian federal and state controls around the pandemic have continued to offer lessons in clinical governance by way of analogy.

Risk can be framed in absolute or relative terms - however, individual choices are made on the basis of more than numbers alone.

‘Telehealth services use information and communications technologies (ICTs) to deliver health services and transmit health information over both long and short distances. It is about transmitting voice, data, images and information rather than moving care recipients, health professionals or educators. It encompasses diagnosis, treatment, preventive (educational) and curative aspects of healthcare services and typically involves care recipient(s), care providers or educators in the provision of these services directed to the care recipient.’ 

Reporting is not just ‘red tape’ – it is an essential part of clinical governance. Why? Because unless we observe and assess care outcomes and experiences on an ongoing basis - which reporting enables – we cannot effectively identify risks, emerging risks, or areas for improvement.