Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18828963›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2008

Auditing orthopaedic audit.

E Guryel, K Acton, S Patel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

E GuryelDepartment of Orthopaedics, Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey, UK. enisguryel@doctors.org.uk
K Acton
S Patel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClinical audit plays an important role in the drive to improve the quality of patient care and thus forms a cornerstone of clinical governance. Assurance that the quality of patient care has improved requires completion of the audit cycle. A considerable sum of money and time has been spent establishing audit activity in the UK. Failure to close the loop undermines the effectiveness of the audit process and wastes resources. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe analysed the effectiveness of audit in trauma and orthopaedics at a local hospital by comparing audit projects completed over a 6-year period to criteria set out in the NHS National Audit and Governance report.

resultsOf the 25 audits performed since 1999, half were presented to the relevant parties and only 20% completed the audit cycle. Only two of these were audits against national standards and 28% were not based on any standards at all. Only a third of the audits led by junior doctors resulted in implementation of their action plan compared to 75% implementation for consultant-led and 67% for nurse-led audits.

conclusionsA remarkably large proportion of audits included in this analysis failed to meet accepted criteria for effective audit. Audits completed by junior doctors were found to be the least likely to complete the cycle. This may relate to the lack of continuity in modern medical training and little incentive to complete the cycle. Supervision by permanent medical staff, principally consultants, and involvement of the audit department may play the biggest role in improving implementation of change.

Indexed as

EnglandHospitals, DistrictHumansMedical AuditOrthopedic ProceduresPatient Care PlanningRetrospective StudiesTrauma Centers

Identifiers

PMID18828963
PMCPMC2727811

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.