Is the NHS getting better or worse?: Role of information in assessing quality is undervalued

doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7431.106-a

BMJ 2004;328:106 (10 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7431.106-a

Letter

Is the NHS getting better or worse?

Role of information in assessing quality is undervalued

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Smith's editorial on assessing quality of and inthe English NHS underscored the essential role of good informationat all levels.¹ It appeared on the same day that the NuffieldTrust launched a volume of essays on the importance of vision,value, and innovation in health information.²

However, the editorial perpetuated the frequent confusion betweeninformation and data and assumed that evidence would emergeby osmosis. The government, NHS, health professions, and commentatorsall continue to abuse the information sector in health—assumingthat top-down direction on information technology and shortterm programmes will automatically yield the "right" answersto expedient questions.

But true investment in information, its development and use,and above all in trust in the data and authoritative analyses,get sidelined. At the same time, the leadership role of theNHS Information Authority is undermined and the field fragmentedby the allocation of sections of activity . . . [Full text of this article]

Michael J Rigby, reader

Centre for Health Planning and Management, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG m.j.rigby@keele.ac.uk