Resources

Variations in the way care is accessed or delivered, and in clinical outcomes, can be highly informative. It may be that such variations are warranted or expected (for example, the surge in telehealth at the outset of the pandemic, or in the number of infection-related deaths) or may reflect person-centredness and individual choice. However sometimes variations may be ‘unwarranted’ and unveil weaknesses in the quality of care, or worse still, herald the risk of harm.

One practice the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted from the outset was the importance of hand hygiene in infection prevention and control – a practice that in the past has often been approached with a degree of complacency.  Some of the literature concludes that compliance with hand hygiene has improved during the course of the pandemic, while other studies suggest it has not.

All human service sectors experience turning points. The 1990s was a decade of revelation about poor healthcare quality, identified and reported in major studies of adverse events and public inquiries across the world. The initial shock waves evolved into a care safety revolution, supported by the introduction of clinical governance. A quarter of a century later, the outcomes of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Royal Commission is having a similar impact in aged care, with a stream of legislation and innovations challenging aged care providers to re-set their approach to creating and maintaining quality care.

In this webinar, Cathy Balding will talk us through four clinical governance rabbit holes that have been observed in healthcare and how avoiding them can accelerate aged care clinical governance effectiveness.

The concept of clinical governance includes how we conduct ourselves as individuals – that is, our ‘personal conduct’ in ‘controlling, regulating, directing or overseeing’ the ‘assessment and management of a person’s health to support optimal outcomes’, where ‘outcomes’ includes the ‘experience of care’.

Simulation in healthcare has traditionally been applied in the context of education and training. Whilst robust education and training (which may be achieved through simulation) will ultimately improve safety and quality, simulation can also be used much more broadly - and directly - as a tool in enhancing safety and quality in care delivery.

Continuous improvement is the essence of clinical governance. But continuous improvement requires change, and change can be confronting. As we predictably move towards a more digitised world - including in healthcare, and aged care – change is also inevitable.

Regulation can support clinical governance.  This is particularly palpable in aged care reform, where new legislation and revised standards shine a spotlight on clinical governance in way that has not been done in the Australian aged care system before.

Many of the provisions introduced by the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act 2022 will enhance clinical governance in aged care – this is how.

As at July 2022, there were in excess of 642,000 health practitioners registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).  In addition to this cohort, there are also non-registered health professionals who play an essential role in the delivery of care.

It has been 14 years since all governments in Australia signed the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, yet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities are still facing barriers to achieving equitable outcomes in health and wellbeing. Despite an abundance of good intentions, healthcare settings are still places where deficits in cultural safety often drive poorer outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This discussion explores what’s required in practice to change that reality.

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?