ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Supporting practice-based audit: a price to be paid for collecting data.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Morbidity and mortality audits: "How to"for family practice.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2005Article
- Do general practitioners want payment for their data collection?European journal of epidemiology · 2004Article
- Measuring access to primary care appointments: a review of methods.BMC family practice · 2003Article
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
backgroundThere has been considerable investment by health authorities in the funding of support staff whose job is to collect data for audit purposes. It is important to understand what costs are involved in such a data collection exercise. The cost advantages of using existing practice staff or externally funded staff are not known.
aimTo assess the cost of transposing data on workload to computer software for audit purposes and retrieving data on five chronic diseases from case records.
methodFour audit support staff monitored the time taken to collect specific data as part of a broad audit programme in 12 training practices within one health board area in the West of Scotland in 1997. The time taken was used to estimate comparative costs for using a receptionist or practice nurse for carrying out a similar exercise.
resultsAverage costs for collecting data per 1000 patients for waiting time, appointments, recall, and telephone audits were 5.24 Pounds for reception staff, 5.64 Pounds for audit support staff, and 9.68 Pounds for a practice nurse. The average cost for collecting data per patient with diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, hypertension, or rheumatoid arthritis was 1.48 Pounds for reception staff, 1.60 Pounds for audit support staff, and 2.74 Pounds for a practice nurse.
conclusionsThe cost of collecting data varies considerably depending on which staff are chosen for the purpose. Practices should consider carefully how best to collect data for audit in terms of cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10885082PMC1313529What 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.