Detailing ‘measures that matter’

The methodology I describe in this paper encapsulates an approach which attempts to highlight both hard and soft measures within a Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton 1996). The information presented will have relevance for both Foundation and non-Foundation Trusts. It stems from understanding how to manage assurance, identify risks, understand performance, and present data in the right format for updating boards. (R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, 1996. Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review (January/February): 75-85)

Providing assurance

Boards themselves are evolving, and improving, and, as part of their own assurance framework, have adopted a number of strategies for obtaining clear assurance regarding patient safety, quality, governance, and financial management. These methodologies include triangulation where, via a number of board sub-committees, and provision of evidenced information/performance to Monitor, and the commissioner, there can be embedded assurance that performance in all these areas is being fully assessed and improved. However, these assurances must be derived from good, evidenced information which can be viewed, assessed, and questioned, by any board, as well as those parties charged with assessing governance, patient/staff safety, and performance (the Care Quality Commission, Monitor, the commissioner strategic health authority etc). This evidenced information can be gained from a number of measures, recorded and used by directorates and the Trust, and seen as “measures that matter”.