Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41854490›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2026

Shared clinical governance arrangements between NHS and independent acute hospitals in England: Findings from a national survey of senior leaders.

Gemma Stringer, Jane Ferguson, Kieran Walshe, Christos Grigoroglou, Thomas Allen, Michael Anderson, Karen Bloor, Eleanor Gee, Nils Gutacker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Gemma StringerDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9325-3362
Jane FergusonAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kieran WalsheAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Christos GrigoroglouManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Thomas AllenManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2972-7911
Michael AndersonHealth Organisation, Policy, and Economics (HOPE), Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Karen BloorDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
Eleanor GeeAlliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nils GutackerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2833-0621

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectivesTo present the findings from a national survey of senior leaders in NHS and independent hospitals in England concerning the effectiveness of shared arrangements for clinical governance. To provide a comprehensive overview of shared arrangements for the oversight of consultants' practice, processes for appraisal and revalidation, and the management of significant concerns. The results from this study will improve understanding of the practical functioning of clinical governance processes at the interface between the NHS and the independent sector.MethodsBetween December 2023 and April 2024, an online survey was distributed to senior leads with governance responsibilities in NHS and independent hospitals in England.Results320 responses were received (response rate 42%), 235 from individuals working in NHS trusts (response rate 40%) and 85 from individuals in independent hospitals (response rate 48%). Respondents reported that some clinical governance arrangements are established across both sectors, with some relationships characterised as positive and relatively strong. However, relationships often depended on goodwill, personal connections, and consultant probity, rather than the systematic implementation of recommended processes. Respondents expressed concerns regarding the non-mandatory and unregulated nature of processes for sharing concerns, believing this led to insufficient resources and challenges in verifying information. They called for improved data quality, better communication and information sharing and more robust and formalised processes.ConclusionsShared clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors are in place in some but not all of the organisations where respondents' consultants worked. This raises concerns about progress towards implementing the Paterson inquiry recommendations, including access to consultants' whole practice information and sharing concerns about consultants working across different providers. The findings may also hold relevance for international audiences where medical staff work across multiple healthcare providers. Further empirical research is needed to compare clinical governance arrangements between the NHS and independent sectors, and suggest how shared clinical governance can be organised to assure the quality and safety of care.

Indexed as

Clinical GovernanceState MedicineEnglandHumansLeadershipSurveys and Questionnairesclinical governancenational surveyquality and safety

Identifiers

PMID41854490
PMCPMC13589108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.