When governance is framed as clinical, entire sectors that absolutely shape safety and outcomes can feel permitted to step out.
For decades, clinical governance has been the backbone of safety, quality and continuous improvement in healthcare.
It was designed for a world of hospitals, clinics and face-to-face care. But that world has changed.
Today, health and care are delivered through virtual platforms, telehealth, remote monitoring, technology-enabled services and complex ecosystems that sit well beyond traditional clinical settings.
The question is no longer whether care has changed – but whether our governance has kept up.
Here’s where I see the problem.
When governance is framed as clinical, entire sectors that absolutely shape safety and outcomes can feel permitted to step out. Not because they don’t care — but because they don’t see themselves as “clinical”.
This can include:
- disability, aged and in-home care;
- early childhood, education and social care;
- digital health and technology vendors;
- infrastructure providers (telcos, power);
- insurers and government departments.
These sectors intersect with health and care every day. Different sectors, same issue — governance blind spots.
Changing this is hard. “Clinical governance” is deeply embedded and strongly branded. Dropping the word clinical can feel like abandoning its principles. I totally get it.
But clinical governance has always been about more than clinical care. It’s about safe, high-quality, continuously improving service delivery, culture, and how organisations work.
So why not call it what it really is?
I have landed on this concept: “HealthCare+ governance”, an evolution – not a rejection – of clinical governance that:
- unifies clinical, care, technology and enterprise governance;
- recognises that health and care are distinct but interconnected;
- explicitly includes technology, data and non-clinical sectors through the “+”.
Related
This matters because technology is no longer optional. As Simon Kuestenmacher reminds us, Australia’s demographics mean AI and automation are essential to the sustainability of our health system. Governance that ignores this reality is governance that fails.
This thinking feels promising. HealthCare+ governance brings:
- clarity for teams that don’t identify as clinical;
- confidence for boards overseeing complex ecosystems;
- flexibility as care models and technologies evolve.
The big question
If governance is about safety, quality and trust – shouldn’t it evolve with the way health and care are delivered?
Clinical governance got us here, but the future demands something broader, more inclusive and technology aware.
Maybe it’s time.
Liz Keen is head of healthcare governance at Infosys Consulting. She is a panel member on the Australasian Institute of Digital Health’s regulation, standards and assurance frameworks SME panel, and a nurse.
This article was first published on Ms Keen’s LinkedIn feed. Read the original article here.