Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16773146›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2004

Interface flow process audit: using the patient's career as a tracer of quality of care and of system organisation.

Jean-Pierre Unger, Bruno Marchal, Sylvie Dugas, Marie-Jeanne Wuidar, Daniel Burdet, Pierre Leemans, Jacques Unger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of integrated care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

7 authors.

Jean-Pierre UngerPrince Leopold Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium. jpunger@itg.be
Bruno Marchal
Sylvie Dugas
Marie-Jeanne Wuidar
Daniel Burdet
Pierre Leemans
Jacques Unger

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis case study aims to demonstrate the method's feasibility and capacity to improve quality of care. Several drawbacks attached to tracer condition and selected procedure audits oblige clinicians to rely on external evaluators. Interface flow process audit is an alternative method, which also favours integration of health care across institutions divide.

methodsAn action research study was carried out to test the feasibility of interface flow process audit and its impact on quality improvement. An anonymous questionnaire was carried out to assess the participants' perception of the process.

resultsIn this study, interface flow process audit brought together general practitioners and hospital doctors to analyse the co-ordination of their activities across the primary-secondary interface. Human factors and organisational characteristics had a clear influence on implementation of the solutions. In general, the participants confirmed that the interface flow process audit helped them to analyse the quality of case management both at primary and secondary care level.

conclusionsThe interface flow process audit appears a useful method for regular in-service self-evaluation. Its practice enabled to address a wide scope of clinical, managerial and economical problems. Bridging the primary-secondary care gap, interface flow process audit's focus on the patient's career combined with the broad scope of problems that can be analysed are particularly powerful features. The methodology would benefit from an evaluation of its practice on larger scale.

Identifiers

PMID16773146
PMCPMC1393263

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.