ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1996
Clinical audit and the purchaser-provider interaction: different attitudes and expectations in the United Kingdom.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.Quality in health care : QHC · 2000Review
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 explore and describe the views on clinical audit of healthcare purchasers and providers, and in particular the interaction between them, and hence to help the future development of an appropriate interaction between purchasers and providers.
designSemistructured interviews.
settingFour purchaser and provider pairings in the former Northern Region of the National Health Service (NHS) in England. SUBJECTS: Chief executives, contracts managers, quality and audit leaders, directors of public health, consultants, general practitioners, audit support staff, and practice managers (total 42). MAIN MEASURES: Attitudes on the present state and future development of clinical audit.
resultsPurchasers and providers shared common views on the purpose of clinical audit, but there were important differences in their views on the level and appropriateness of involvement of health care purchasers, integration with present NHS structures and processes (including contracting and the internal market), priority setting for clinical audit, the effects of clinical audit on service development and purchasing, change in behaviour, and the sharing of information on the outcomes of clinical audit.
conclusionsThere are important differences in attitudes towards, and expectations of, clinical audit between health care purchasers and providers, at least in part due to the limited contact between them on audit to date. The nature of the relation and dialogue between purchasers and providers will be critical in determining whether clinical audit meets the differing aspirations of both groups, while achieving the ultimate goal of improving the quality of patient care.
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.