Which practice best supports board accountability for quality outcomes?

• A. Regularly monitor quality metrics and require corrective actions
• B. Rely on management for all quality decisions without board review
• C. Limit data sharing to the chair
• D. Approve budgets only

Answer: (A)

Regularly monitoring quality metrics and requiring corrective actions embodies governance by turning data into action. When the board keeps a continuous pulse on quality indicators and insists on steps to fix gaps, it demonstrates accountability for outcomes and ensures leadership remains focused on measurable improvement. This approach creates a clear expectation that quality targets are tracked, and when performance slips, timely remedies are implemented, aligning oversight with actual results. By comparison, leaving quality decisions entirely to management removes independent oversight, limiting transparency and accountability; restricting data sharing to a single person reduces the board’s ability to monitor effectively; and approving budgets alone addresses resources without driving ongoing measurement or remediation to raise quality outcomes.