La gouvernance clinique pour l’amélioration de la qualité dans les établissements de soins et services non hospitaliers : enjeux conceptuels, de mise en œuvre et évaluatifs

Introduction: Clinical governance framework was developed in order to achieve high standards of quality of care and services, by combining the concepts of continuous quality improvement, clinical excellence and corporate accountability. The aim of this doctoral thesis was to understand the implementation process of clinical governance in a rehabilitation center. Methods: A meta-narrative synthesis on the conceptualization and implementation of clinical governance was conducted. 65 tittles screened in 4 international databases were analysing. A qualitative single case study was conducted in a rehabilitation center for intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders, in Quebec (Canada). By mobilizing the five constructs of the conceptual framework based on normalization process theory (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring and organizational context), a thematic analysis of individual interviews with 22 participants (5 administrators, 11 managers and 6 clinicians) and  tree focus groups with 8 clinicians and 4 relatives of users were conducted. Finally, an analysis of around hundred administrative documents from the Center was conducted. Results: The literature revealed that the clinical governance framework is an evolving concept and still seen as an interesting avenue for improving the quality of care. However, confusion over its definition and conceptualization, and the difficulties of its implementation remain challenges for organizations. By mobilizing the clinical governance framework, the senior management of the rehabilitation center under study wished to systematize the process of continuous improvement of quality of services offered to users and their families, by adopting good governance practices. This shift was well received by administrators and managers, resulting in active participation and a strong commitment to activities. The complexity of the framework and the absence of involvement of clinicians in the implementation process have created in them an apprehension regarding the contribution of clinical governance to clinical practice and the well-being of users. Clinicians have criticized the lack of alignment between theory and the realities of clinical practice; the high speed of implementation and a top-down decision-making approach as issues of the implementation of clinical governance. For managers, the challenges have been the establishment of effective communications; the alignment of management mechanisms and the availability of human resources. For administrators, the main issue was the instability of the internal and external organizational contexts which slowed down the implementation and the development of an evaluation plan.  Conclusion: The implementation of clinical governance in non-hospital facility requires the promotion of this concept as a joint project for the benefit of the user with a view to strengthening the participation and commitment of all and the adoption of a partnership approach between users, caregivers and other actors in the organization.

Keyphrases: Clinical governance, Healthcare quality, Continuous improvement, Implementation, Clinical pratices, Rehabilitation center, Social services, Organizational management, Normalization process theory, Meta-narrative review