Professor Burns (Reference Burns2002) makes some good points in his article on the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). The CHI is a relatively new organisation and is constantly learning. Already, many of the suggestions for change to our clinical governance review process made in his article have been identified and implemented through our own processes of self-review and improvement. Such improvements include shortened clinical governance reviews and shorter, more accessible reports.

However, Professor Burns unfairly doubts the experience of CHI reviewers who undergo a rigorous assessment and training programme. He also questions the consistency of clinical governance review reports. We have developed assessment frameworks to help review managers, and reviewers make reliable and consistent assessments transparent to both the organisation and its stakeholders. This framework underpins the entire process, driving the collection of data and information and all reporting arrangements.

Professor Burns also makes unhelpful comparisons between homicide inquiries and CHI reviews. Our role is not to identify individuals to whom blame can be attributed, but to help encourage improvement where improvement can be made. Many have found CHI's reviews a positive experience enabling the organisation to recognise strengths as well as weaknesses. In the meantime, the CHI is committed to learning and improving our own systems through constant consultation. Feedback is always welcome; even better, why not become a CHI reviewer and make your own contribution?

Declaration of interest

L. P. is Medical Director and J. C. is Director of Policy and Development at the CHI.