Better information for better health

Citation

Wright, J. (2008), "Better information for better health", Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/cgij.2008.24813daa.001

Better information for better health

Article Type: Editorial From: Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Volume 13, Issue 4

Accurate and reliable data on the health of patients and the clinical performance of staff is a prerequisite for improving the quality of clinical care and the health of patients and the public. Evidence from clinical audit suggests that such data are most effective in changing practice when fed back to practitioners in a tailored and timely manner. There is a huge volume of routinely collected data in the NHS and health services internationally but its utility is limited by uncertainties about its validity and reliability, poorly coordinated collection and linkage of data, and lack of timely, tailored feedback.

Difficulties in addressing these limitations have led health researchers and quality improvement staff to establish bespoke data collection through audits, disease registers or research studies. The separation of research and audit data collection from routine clinical practice is not only expensive duplication but also establishes a gap between clinical staff and researchers that potentially hinders subsequent implementation.

The difficulties in linking data between organisations and health care settings (e.g. primary and secondary care) also limits health intelligence for changing clinical practice and commissioning decisions. Clinical teams struggle to evaluate the impact of their practice as they do not receive information about subsequent treatment or health events. Commissioners struggle to make informed decisions about assessing the needs of their populations because of gaps in the health intelligence available to them.

This issue of Clinical Governance describes some examples of how routine and bespoke information can be used to inform and improve quality and safety of care. Exton et al. (pp. 250-53) show how using routine information from booking and theatre times demonstrated delays and provided the evidence to establish a day surgery unit. Park et al. (pp. 254-60) describe how close involvement of clinicians in the design and implementation of an electronic information system ensured that the system provided useful and accurate data.

Mercer and Murphy (pp. 269-83) report how a bespoke measure of doctor communication in primary care has the necessary reliability and validity for use in secondary care. Finally Basu et al. (pp. 284-89) report the limitations of routine data from incident reporting, highlighting the lack of linkage to complaints and claims, and the lack of involvement from medical staff.

John Wright