ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1995
Audit activity and quality of completed audit projects in primary care in Staffordshire.
Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Morbidity and mortality audits: "How to"for family practice.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2005Article
- Progress of unit based quality improvement: an evaluation of a support strategy.Quality & safety in health care · 2002Article
- Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Review
- Setting up improvement projects in small scale primary care practices: feasibility of a model for continuous quality improvement.Quality in health care : QHC · 1999Article
- Nurses' participation in audit: a regional study.Quality in health care : QHC · 1998Article
- A survey of audit activity in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998Article
- Investigation into the attitudes of general practitioners in Staffordshire to medical audit.Quality in health care : QHC · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo survey audit activity in primary care and determine which practice factors are associated with completed audit; to survey the quality of completed audit projects.
designFrom April 1992 to June 1993 a team from the medical audit advisory group visited all general practices; a research assistant visited each practice to study the best audit project. Data were collected in structured interviews.
settingStaffordshire, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: All 189 general practices. MAIN MEASURES: Audit activity using Oxford classification system. Quality of best audit project by assessing choice of topic; participation of practice staff; setting of standards; methods of data collection and presentation of results; whether a plan to make changes resulted from the audit; and whether changes led to the set standards being achieved.
resultsAudit information was available from 169 practices (89%). 44(26%) practices had carried out at least one full audit; 40(24%) had not started audit. Mean scores with the Oxford classification system were significantly higher with the presence of a practice manager (2.7(95% confidence interval 2.4 to 2.9) v 1.2(0.7 to 1.8), p < 0.0001) and with computerisation (2.8(2.5 to 3.1) v 1.4 (0.9 to 2.0), p < 0.0001), organised notes (2.6(2.1 to 3.0) v 1.7(7.2 to 2.2), p = 0.03), being a training practice (3.5(3.2 to 3.8) v 2.1(1.8 to 2.4), p < 0.0001), and being a partnership (2.8(2.6 to 3.0) v 1.5(1.1 to 2.0), p < 0.0001). Standards had been set in 62 of the 71 projects reviewed. Data were collected prospectively in 36 projects and retrospectively in 35. 16 projects entailed taking samples from a study population and 55 from the whole population. 50 projects had a written summary. Performance was less than the standards set or expected in 56 projects. 62 practices made changes as a result of the audit. 35 of the 53 that had reviewed the changes found that the original standards had been reached.
conclusionsEvaluation of audit in primary care should include evaluation of the methods used, whether deficiencies were identified, and whether changes were implemented to resolve any problems found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.