A Survey on Clinical Governance Awareness Among Clinical Staff: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical Governance (CG) program has been raised in Iran in order to improve the quality of clinical care. The purpose of this study is to investigate the awareness of clinical governance program among clinical staff working in selected teaching hospitals in Tehran, Iran. METHODS: To investigate the CG awareness, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among 345 clinical staff working in 20 selected public hospitals in Tehran. Data were gathered using the standardized clinical governance awareness questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULT: The results showed that the level of staff awareness about the concept of CG was low. They perceived continuous quality improvement, responsibility, medical errors reduction and patient safety as the main concepts of the CG framework. Reaching agreement of standards concepts among staff and positive changes in attitudes were considered as two most observed changes. The main perceived barriers to the implementation of clinical governance included lack of proper management and leadership, lack of full support, inappropriate organizational culture, lack of knowledge, poor communication system and insufficient training. CONCLUSIONS: The concepts and goals of clinical governance have not been effectively conveyed to the staff and despite its implementation in the hospitals, there has been low clinical governance awareness among the staff. Clinical Governance must be implemented through comprehensive management support and participation of all staff and health professionals at both hospital and policy making level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".