Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10157267›Full record

ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1996

Investigation into the attitudes of general practitioners in Staffordshire to medical audit.

R Chambers, S Bowyer, I Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Clinical governance for diabetes in primary care: use of practice guidelines and participation in multi-practice audit.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Clinical audit: time for a reappraisal?Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

R ChambersCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Keele, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
S Bowyer
I Campbell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the attitudes of general practitioners to medical audit, and any associations between their attitudes and their personal characteristics.

designPostal questionnaire survey. SETTING --Staffordshire, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: 870 Staffordshire general practitioners. MAIN MEASURES: Agreement or disagreement and associations between the attitudes to 16 statements about audit and the doctors' personal or practice characteristics--namely, sex, number of years since qualification, practice list size, number of partners, and the practices' experience of audit.

results601 Staffordshire general practitioners (69%) responded. There was most agreement with the statements that audit is time consuming (86%), that ongoing training and education is needed (71%), that there is a compulsion applied on doctors to audit (68%), and that extra resources for audit should be provided by the medical audit advisory group (65%). There was considerable disagreement (53% of general practitioners) with the statement that ¿government policy to expect general practitioners to do audit will enhance the population's health.¿ The median response by the 601 general practitioners was four positive responses out of 14 statements about audit (two of the 16 statements could not be graded positive or negative to audit). Women doctors generally had more positive attitudes towards audit, and so had those working with smaller mean list sizes, those in larger partnerships, and those in practices that had carried out audit for a longer time.

conclusionsThere was a generally negative attitude to medical audit, but it was encouraging that those doctors with the most experience of audit obtained the most job satisfaction from it. IMPLICATIONS: More effort is needed to convince general practitioners of the value of audit. Without this, attempts to involve other members of the primary care team in multidisciplinary clinical audit are unlikely to be effective. Successful audits that are shown to be cost effective as well as leading to improvements in patient care should be publicised and replicated. A higher proportion of resources should be devoted to audit.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, ContinuingEnglandFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansJob SatisfactionMaleMedical AuditPhysicians, FamilyPhysicians, Women

Identifiers

PMID10157267
PMCPMC1055349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.