ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1995
Promoting audit in primary care: roles and relationships of medical audit advisory groups and their managers.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality improvement: a multiprofessional commodity?Quality in health care : QHC · 1996Article
- Quality improvement: an international commodity?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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate perceptions of family health service authorities and medical audit advisory groups of advisory groups' involvement in clinical audit and wider quality issues; communication with the authorities; and manager satisfaction.
designNational postal questionnaire survey in 1994.
settingAll family health services authority districts in England and Wales. SUBJECTS: Chief executives or other responsible authority officers and advisory group chairpersons in each district. MAIN MEASURES: Priorities of advisory group and authority for audit; involvement of advisory group in wider quality issues; communication of information to, and contacts with, the authority and its involvement in planning the future work of the advisory group; and authorities' satisfaction.
resultsBoth groups' views about audit were similar and broadly consistent with current policy. Advisory group involvement in wider quality issues was extensive, and the majority of both groups thought this appropriate. Much of the information about their activities collected by advisory groups was not passed on to the authority. The most frequent contact between the two groups was the advisory group's annual report, but formal personal contact was the most valued. Most authority respondents thought their views had been recognised in the advisory group's planning of future work; only a small minority were not satisfied with their advisory groups. Dissatisfied respondents received less information from their advisory groups, had less contact with them, and thought they had less input into their plans. There was some evidence that advisory groups in the "dissatisfied districts" were less involved in clinical audit and with their authorities in wider quality issues.
conclusionsMost advisory groups are developing their activities in clinical audit and have expanded their scope of work. The quality and availability of information about progress with audit is a cause for concern to both groups.
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.