What would it take to improve the quality of healthcare: more money, or more data?

Abstract

Despite a sustained and massive increase in spending with the NHS, the evidence that care has improved, other than in areas of performance that have been intensively managed or rewarded by additional cash bonuses, is poor to non-existent. This failure to achieve across-the-board improvement is attributable to the fact that the outcomes of healthcare are 'system properties' and are unlikely to improve as a result of more work being put through the same system, and instead will only improve if healthcare providers at all levels are actively encouraged to redesign the system to improve on current performance. The most important way to achieve the 'will' to make such changes is to use data, preferably collected with minimal additional work, to generate clinically convincing case-mix-adjusted analyses of quality of care. Examples are given from the centre-specific analyses published by the UK Renal Registry, a fully electronic registry that analyses data extracted direct from renal information technology systems used in each primary care trust that provides renal replacement therapy, and from other national and regional quality improvement programmes. The NHS has unrivalled opportunities to learn from high performance and to use this learning to narrow the gap between best and worst.