Objective To examine the in, pact of the publication of clinical outcomes data on NHS Trusts in Scotland to inform the development of similar schemes elsewhere. Design Case studies including semistructured interviews and a review of background statistics. Setting Eight Scottish NHS acute trusts. Participants 48 trust staff comprising chief executives, medical directors, stroke consultants, breast cancer consultants, nurse managers, and junior doctors. Main outcome measures Staff views on the benefits and drawbacks of clinical outcome indicators provided by the clinical resource and audit group (CRAG) and perceptions of the impact of these data on clinical practice and continuous improvement of quality. Results The CRAG indicators had a low profile in the trusts and were rarely cited as informing internal quality: improvement or used externally to identify best practice. The indicators were mainly used to support applications for further funding and service development. The poor effect was attributable to a lack of professional belief in the indicators, arising from perceived problems around quality of data and time lag between collection and presentation of data; limited dissemination; weak incentives to take action; a predilection for process rather than outcome indicators; and a belief that informal information is often more useful than quantitative data in the assessment of clinical performance. Conclusions Those responsible for developing clinical indicator programmes should develop robust datasets. They should also encourage a working environment and incentives such that these data are used to improve continuously.
|Number of pages||4|
|Journal||British Medical Journal|
|Publication status||Published - 4 Aug 2001|