Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review
  1. Alessandra Buja1,
  2. Roberto Toffanin2,
  3. Mirko Claus3,
  4. Walter Ricciardi4,
  5. Gianfranco Damiani4,
  6. Vincenzo Baldo1,
  7. Mark H Ebell5
  1. 1 Unit of Hygiene and Public Health, Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, Laboratory of Health Care Services and Health Promotion Evaluation, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  2. 2 Past Administrative Directorship, ex-ULSS 4, Veneto, Italy
  3. 3 Department of Cardiologic, Vascular, Thoracic Sciences and Public Health, School of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  4. 4 Department of Public Health, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  5. 5 College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, Greece, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alessandra Buja; alessandra.buja{at}unipd.it

Abstract

Objectives Our goal is to conceptualise a clinical governance framework for the effective management of chronic diseases in the primary care setting, which will facilitate a reorganisation of healthcare services that systematically improves their performance.

Setting Primary care.

Participants Chronic Care Model by Wagner et aland Clinical Governance statement by Scally et alwere taken for reference. Each was reviewed, including their various components. We then conceptualised a new framework, merging the relevant aspects of both.

Interventions We conducted an umbrella review of all systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group to identify organisational interventions in primary care with demonstrated evidence of efficacy.

Results All primary healthcare systems should be patient-centred. Interventions for patients and their families should focus on their values; on clinical, professional and institutional integration and finally on accountability to patients, peers and society at large. These interventions should be shaped by an approach to their clinical management that achieves the best clinical governance, which includes quality assurance, risk management, technology assessment, management of patient satisfaction and patient empowerment and engagement. This approach demands the implementation of a system of organisational, functional and professional management based on a population health needs assessment, resource management, evidence-based and patient-oriented research, professional education, team building and information and communication technologies that support the delivery system. All primary care should be embedded in and founded on an active partnership with the society it serves.

Conclusions A framework for clinical governance will promote an integrated effort to bring together all related activities, melding environmental, administrative, support and clinical elements to ensure a coordinated and integrated approach that sustains the provision of better care for chronic conditions in primary care setting.

  • primary health care
  • chronic disease
  • healthcare
  • health system framework

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors AB, RT and VB: conceptualisation, design of the methodologies, wrote and approved the final manuscript as submitted. MC: review analysis, wrote and revised the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted. GD: conceptualisation, supervision of the study, approved the final manuscript as submitted. MHE and WR: supervision, critically reviewed the manuscript, approved the final manuscript as submitted.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data available.