Abstract
In this chapter I wish to show some of the ways in which questions of accountability relate to discussions about how to develop performance indicators (PIs) for nurse training institutions. The evidence I draw upon is derived from material gathered over a two-year period of research for the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (ENB), which commissioned Alan Beattie to direct a project on the subject at the University of London Institute of Education. The aim of this research was to explore the feasibility of developing PIs for nurse (and midwife) training institutions. The account I give of this research is intended to show how the initial findings led to further work on implementation issues, and finally to a series of recommendations for the ENB to consider in formulating policy. Accordingly, the views in this section of the chapter are presented as the collective views of the research team and termed as such.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Audit Commission. 1983. Code of Local Government Audit Practice for England and Wales. London: Audit Commission.
Balogh, R. and Beattie, A. 1988a. Performance review. Nursing Times, 4 May, 84(18).
Balogh, R. and Beattie, A. 1988b. Performance Indicators in Nursing Education — Final Report on a Feasibility Study. University of London Institute of Education.
Balogh, R. and Beattie, A. 1989. Monitoring Performance and Quality in Training Institutions. University of London Institute of Education.
Balogh, R., Beattie, A. and Beckerleg, S. 1989. Figuring Out Performance. Sheffield: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
Best, G. A. 1986. Performance indicators — a precautionary tale for unit managers. In H. I. Wickings (ed.), Effective Unit General Management. London: Kings Fund.
Briggs, A. 1972. Report of the Committee on Nursing. Cmnd 5115. London: HMSO.
Department of Health. 1989a. Working for Patients. Cmd 555. London: HMSO.
Department of Health. 1989b. Working for Patients — Education and Training, Working Paper 10. London: HMSO.
Department of Health. 1989c. Caring for People. CM 849. London: HMSO.
Donabedian, A. 1978. Needed Research in the Assessment and Monitoring of the Quality of Medical Care. Washington DC: US Department of Health Education and Welfare, National Centre for Health Service Research.
Elliott, I. 1984. The case for school self-evaluation. Forum, Autumn, 1.
ENB. 1989a. Study of the Interface between the ENB and Approved Training Institutions (Deloittes Report). London: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
ENB. 1989b. Review of the United Kingdom Central Council and the Four National Boards for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting (Peat Marwick McLintock Report). London: English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
ENB. 1989c. Managing Change in Nursing Education. Sheffield. English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
Goldacre, M. and Griffin, K. 1983. Performance Indicators — A Commentary on the Literature. Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Oxford University.
HMSO. 1982. Local Government Finance Act. London.
Jarratt Report. 1985. Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities. London: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
Klein, R. 1983. The Politics of the National Health Service. London and New York: Longman.
Levitt, M. S. (ed.) 1987. New Priorities in Public Spending. London: Gower House.
Likierman, A. 1988. Public Expenditure. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Ministry of Health et al. 1947. Report of the Working Party on Recruitment and Training of Nurses (Wood Report). London: HMSO.
Ministry of Health. 1956. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Cost of the National Health Service (Guillebaud Report). Cmnd. 663. London: HMSO.
Mullen, P. M. 1990. Which internal market? The NHS White Paper and internal markets. Financial Accountability and Management 6(1): 33–50.
Peacock, A. and Wiseman, J. 1967. The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom, revised edn. London: Allen & Unwin.
Royal College of Nursing Association of Nursing Education. 1990. Performance Indicators for the Clinical Learning Environment. London: RCN.
Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Secretary of State for Scotland. 1991. Statement by Secretary of State for Scotland on Policy Review of the Statutory Nursing Bodies and the Future Funding and Management of Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting Education. Scottish Home and Health Department.
UKCC. 1985. Project 2000 — a New Preparation for Practice. London: United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
UKCC and Price Waterhouse. 1987. Project 2000 — Report on Costs, Benefits and Manpower Implications. London: United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
Young, R. 1979. Why are figures so significant? The role and critique of quantification. In J. Irvine, I. Miles and J. Evans (eds), Demystifying Social Statistics. London: Pluto Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Keith Soothill, Christine Henry and Kevin Kendrick
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Balogh, R. (1992). Performance indicators and changing patterns of accountability in nurse education. In: Soothill, K., Henry, C., Kendrick, K. (eds) Themes and Perspectives in Nursing. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4435-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-4435-1_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-412-43990-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-4435-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive