ArticleAtencion primaria2010
[Self-audit and tutor accreditation].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the experience of using self-audit (SA) as a means of accrediting family and community medicine tutors, to analyse the knowledge that the tutors have on this self-assessment methodology, and to record their opinions on this method.
designRetrospective descriptive study and analysis of an opinion questionnaire.
settingFamily and community medicine teaching units (TU) in Catalonia.
participantsTutors from family and community medicine TU in Catalonia (July 2001-July 2008).
methodsTraining of the tutors in SA methodology, creation of a reference group and a correction cycle. Correction by peers of the SAs performed by the tutors according to previously determined criteria and subsequent issue of a report-feedback. Self-administered questionnaire by a group of TU tutors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: A total of 673 SA were performed. The most frequent topic selected was diabetes mellitus in 27.9% of cases. The overall evaluation of the SA from a methodological point of view was correct in 44.5% of cases, improvable in 45.3%, and deficient in 10.2%. A total of 300 opinion questionnaires were issued. The response rate was 151/300 (50.03%). On the question about the usefulness of the SA in professional practice, 12% considered it very useful, 56% adequate, and 32% of little use or not useful. As regards whether it was a good means for the re-accreditation or accreditation of tutors, 66% considered that it was not.
conclusionsA high percentage of the SAs analysed are not carried out correctly, which indicates that tutors do not know this self-assessment method very well. They consider that SAs are a useful tool for improving clinical practice, but not a good means for accreditation and re-accreditation.
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.