Darzi review: Annual “quality accounts” will help improve services and increase choice for patients, says Lord Darzi
BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a646 (Published 01 July 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a646All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
‘Darzi, Darzi, give us your answer, do .....’
Darzi’s CV defines he is an accomplished surgeon who has worked in
the UK state health services for much of his working life [Ref 1]. He has
progressed ever upwards in this salaried service, is therefore a compliant
and a trusted fitter-in, and he has a clinical career to be proud of. Does
this medley of achievements invest him with wisdom and vision beyond that
of others? Does competent orthodoxy entitle or disentitle people to inform
change? By contrast, there is also, we know, competent heterodoxy — within
which species, for example, are military generals, occasional politicians,
and even doctors. By serendipitous bureaucratic error, they pop up just in
time in their respective fields to win life-saving battles utilising
undreamt-of (and unconventional) method, when all had looked lost.
We are not surprised to hear a medical mainstay like Darzi parrot
such terms as ‘patient satisfaction’: even though we remember uneasily the
‘satisfied’ patients of certain infamous doctors. ‘Patient satisfaction’
has a politico-sonorous ring though, and sits so beautifully alongside a
tick box. But some feel it rather attenuates a clinical story to the
point of telling us very little or even the wrong story [Ref 2]. It should
not be confused with ‘customer satisfaction’ when a product, if faulty,
can be returned for a new one. Medicine is usually a little different.
‘All healthcare providers working for the NHS will be legally obliged
to publish "quality accounts" on safety, patients’ experience, and
clinical outcomes’. We must fervently hope no one mistakes “quality
accounts” for the real thing — independent clinical accountability [Refs
3,4]. If that mentality (self-regulation) took hold elsewhere, the
government might feel able to pension off tax inspectors and traffic
police. A Chief Medical officer, regarding clinical errors, implored
doctors to have ‘a duty of candour’ [Ref 5]. This noble (but naïve) idea
was consigned to oblivion by the medical profession. Darzi, of course, has
no desire to disturb the status quo in which he has been steeped for so
long, and “quality accounts,” he may think, will dupe the gullible and
keep the profession on-side.
William G Pickering
5.7.08
wgpi@hotmail.com
References:
1. www.nhshistory.net/cvdarzi.htm
2. Pickering W G. Patient satisfaction: an imperfect measurement of
quality medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1993; 19: 121-122.
3. Pickering W G. Systematic clinical accountability is required.
BMJ, Nov 2003; 327: 1109 ; doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1109
4. Pickering WG. An independent medical inspectorate. In: Gladstone
D, ed. Regulating doctors. London: Institute for the Study of Civil
Society, 2000: 47-63. (Civitas).
5. NHS staff should inform patients of negligent acts. News BMJ
2003;327:7 (5 July), doi:10. 1136/bmj.327.7405.7
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Clinical Dashboards and Open Kimonos
My admission: In a previous life I was a sultan of spin. I was the
designer of the Emperors new clothes and a placer of a pot of gold at the
foot of the rainbow. In short I know something about dashboards. I worked
in the fields of corporate venturing and management consultancy for 7
years. When I read that Lord Darzi and his boss Alan Johnson were
championing the clinical dashboard I felt moved to write. Dashboards can
provoke profound motivation.
So Lord Darzi wants us to adopt this management information tool and
display it in hospital foyers. There is no doubt that they are an
attractive tool. The claim is that they take the complexity of running a
large organisation and produce simplicity, the equivalent of management
information sound bites. Its root analogy is the bridge of a ship where
the captain can view which direction the ship is going, at what speed, how
much fuel is left and have warning of any problems the engine is having.
Arrays of colourful indicators – traffic lights – Red, Amber and Green -
that at one glance can help you see how things are going.
Search on Google and you will see that clinical dashboards are not a
new idea. There are over a million results. There are companies
producing the software engine that will provide the statistics. There are
“consultants” who will help you decide what to show on your dashboard and
even where to display it. There is no shortage of public and private
organisations that have adopted them. And I have news for Lord Darzi -
the NHS has already met the “dashboard”. Results 1-10 of the above Google
search show that the Barts and London and the Royal College of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology are practiced users. There is no doubt that managers love
dashboards the question is why? And should we be worried?
How is a dashboard constructed?
First decide what you want to measure. What are the key data
determinants that will show you that your organisation is moving in the
right direction and importantly show you where problems may be brewing?
So for a management team in a hospital what might these things be? Budget
against spend, waiting lists, A and E breeches, procedural success rates
and so on.
Two immediate problems show themselves. First of all these are
measurements against targets which are set at a moment in time. The
psychology is important here. When setting these targets managers are one
or both of two things. Extremely conservative – after all they know they
are going to be judged on them. Testosterone fuelled, setting targets
that show they are a thrusting team. They are not just unwilling but are
unable to let anything stand in their way of achieving these targets! In
the first instance is there any point in measuring the speed of the
tortoise and in the second effort will be employed on failing to meet the
expectations of exaggerated capability.
The Natural History of the dashboard.
In summary they arrive to a large fanfare, they work, they work too
well, they are fudged and then withdrawn. Or put another way at first they
are managed in public and then become managed in private.
A Kentuckian management consultant once told me – “once you open your
kimono you better have something worth showing”. So what happens? The
targets are set and displayed and the energy with which they are pursued
means that red turn’s amber and amber green. Of course it’s the easy
stuff that gets done first. The more difficult things move at a slower
rate. The managers then decide that they are going too slowly and start
to introduce a text commentary to explain the dashboard. They then
realise that some of the testosterone targets are unachievable.
Adaptations and omissions are made. Dashboard 2.0 is released. And so it
goes. Eventually the dashboard is withdrawn and like son in prison – is
never mentioned again.
Is there a message?
Underneath the cynicism I hope I have relayed that the dashboard is a
useful tool. I have one now usefully employed telling me how woefully
behind I am with my finals revision. Who is it useful for though? Back
to the root analogy – It’s useful for the Captain not the passengers. By
making a dashboard public you assure its failure. It’s essential for the
person at the helm to have a simple means of assessing how things are
going. However, the complexity of what lies beneath needs a depth of
understanding and the ability to change course and do what needs to be
done to keep the ship moving.
So a message to Lord Darzi - please sir, keep your kimono closed.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Lord darzi
BMJ. Commission Neil Hughes to write a proper article about this
please. He's
got a wonderful insight into this management speak.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests