Introduction:

Clinical governance is defined as “a system which organisations are responsible for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish” (“Standards for general practices,” 2015). A method of improving the quality of services and achieving a high standard of clinical practice involves appraising staff performance. Clarke, Harcourt & Flynn (2012) states that in the health sector, a key role in implementing clinical governance is by appraising the performance of staff, this in turn, is critical to containing health care costs and ensuring and improving quality patient care.

The intentions of performance appraisals are to maintain and improve a high standard of patient care, however, there are many studies concluding that performance appraisals are not always effective and may even be considered destructive (Bouskila-Yam, & Kluger, 2011). Evidence suggests that appraisals provide minimal satisfaction, as at times can be perceived as unfair, poorly structured and judgmental towards some employees (Spence & Wood, 2007). The reader believes that if performance appraisals were conducted in a manner to suit all parties involved, then appraising staff would be beneficial and critical to improving clinical governance, thus, patient quality care. In the readers’ experience, performance appraisals have not been well presented or conducted by management staff; thus, the reader believing in the appraisal system as ineffective in promoting clinical governance and only creating dissatisfaction. Therefore, the purpose of this paper will be to critically review Clarke, Harcourt & Flynn (2012) study “Clinical Governance, Performance Appraisal and Interactional and Procedural Fairness at a New Zealand Public Hospital” to develop an