Towards a framework for enhancing the performance of NHS boards: a synthesis of the evidence about board governance, board effectiveness and board development

Background: There is a need to reduce the variation in organisational performance across the NHS for which boards hold ultimate responsibility. By exploring how boards can add value, we hope that this research will benefit patients and improve service efficiency and effectiveness. Objectives: We know that there are knowledge gaps in relation to the composition and characteristics of effective boards in the NHS, their impact and the range of tools and techniques available for developing effective boards. This realist synthesis study, therefore, aims to add to existing knowledge by (1) providing a theoretical contribution to board governance and relating it to the NHS context, (2) offering fresh insights into effective board composition, structures, processes and behaviours in the NHS, (3) furthering an understanding of how NHS boards can affect organisational performance and (4) summarising and analysing the range of board assessment tools and development interventions available for the NHS. Method: The study adopted a realist approach to an evidence synthesis of a diffuse literature. In line with realist review principles, we tested, honed and refined the research questions and emerging findings with a joint expert advisory and stakeholder group of 23 people. A search was conducted across relevant library and external sources including ABI/INFORM® (ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), SciVerse® ScienceDirect® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Social Science Research Network, from 1968 to 2011. A total of 618 general articles, 209 health-care-related articles, 252 textbooks and 54 reports were identified. Results: Frameworks that have developed from theory and from practice were categorised into the three elements of composition (board structure), focus (what the board does) and dynamics (the behavioural dimension), and the potential conjunction between board theories and practices was explored. We found some important distinguishing characteristics in the public, non-profit and health-care sectors. In relation to the impact of boards on organisational performance, the importance of contingency factors was highlighted and there is positive empirical support for the role of physicians on the board. Other than self-reports, we could not find any significant studies on the impact of board development on board effectiveness. Limitations: The study is dependent on the diverse nature of the sources of evidence and the relative infancy of the realist synthesis method. The literature is fragmented, equivocal and, at times, contradictory. We believe, nevertheless, that the study offers insights in terms of developing middle-range theories for effective health-care boards. Conclusions: We found no simple theory about how boards should operate. The use of certain models for boards may be more appropriate than others, depending on what the priority is in terms of organisation outcome. We have identified some important distinguishing characteristics in the public and non-profit sectors. On the whole, evidence lends some further support for a theory about the dynamics of an effective board in relation to high challenge, high trust and high engagement, modified in the light of our developing understanding about the linkages between different contexts and desired outcomes. We identified five areas in which board development approaches should be more focused. We suggest three main areas for further research: the composition of NHS boards, the conditions under which health-care boards are able to exert a sustained focus on clinical quality and an evaluation of the impact of board development activities on organisational performance. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme