Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10848367›Full record

ReviewQuality in health care : QHC2000

Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.

G Johnston, I K Crombie, H T Davies, E M Alder, A Millard

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quality in health care : QHC, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
31.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 313 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Audit: Improving Clinical Performance for Patient Safety.Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Barriers and facilitators to disseminating quality improvement and patient safety research: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G JohnstonDepartment of General Practice, Queen's University of Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, UK.
I K Crombie
H T Davies
E M Alder
A Millard
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review the literature on the benefits and disadvantages of clinical and medical audit, and to assess the main facilitators and barriers to conducting the audit process.

designA comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of the indexes of relevant journals for key papers.

resultsFindings from 93 publications were reviewed. These ranged from single case studies of individual audit projects through retrospective reviews of departmental audit programmes to studies of interface projects between primary and secondary care. The studies reviewed incorporated the experiences of a wide variety of clinicians, from medical consultants to professionals allied to medicine and from those involved in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary ventures. Perceived benefits of audit included improved communication among colleagues and other professional groups, improved patient care, increased professional satisfaction, and better administration. Some disadvantages of audit were perceived as diminished clinical ownership, fear of litigation, hierarchical and territorial suspicions, and professional isolation. The main barriers to clinical audit can be classified under five main headings. These are lack of resources, lack of expertise or advice in project design and analysis, problems between groups and group members, lack of an overall plan for audit, and organisational impediments. Key facilitating factors to audit were also identified: they included modern medical records systems, effective training, dedicated staff, protected time, structured programmes, and a shared dialogue between purchasers and providers.

conclusionsClinical audit can be a valuable assistance to any programme which aims to improve the quality of health care and its delivery. Yet without a coherent strategy aimed at nurturing effective audits, valuable opportunities will be lost. Paying careful attention to the professional attitudes highlighted in this review may help audit to deliver on some of its promise.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMedical AuditDatabases, BibliographicEvaluation Studies as TopicFamily PracticeHospitals, GeneralInterprofessional RelationsJob SatisfactionLeadershipMedical RecordsMedical Staff, HospitalMEDLINENursing AuditPartnership PracticePatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID10848367
PMCPMC1743496
OpenAlexW2128747629

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.