ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2011
The National Bowel Cancer Audit Project: what do trusts think of the National Bowel Cancer Audit and how can it be improved?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2011. 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.
- A reduction in hospital length of stay reduces costs for colorectal surgery: an economic evaluation of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Singapore.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Hospital staff participation in a national hip fracture audit: facilitators and barriers.Archives of osteoporosis · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe National Bowel Cancer Audit Project (NBOCAP) collects data from hospitals in the UK and aims to improve surgical outcomes and quality of care for patients. The aims of this study were to understand why trusts were/were not participating in the NBOCAP and how to improve the quality of data collected and feedback.
methodsThis was a prospective e-survey on colorectal surgeons' attitudes towards and opinions of the NBOCAP, within trusts in the UK. A questionnaire was emailed to members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI).
resultsOf the 171 trusts contacted by email, 66% of trusts (n = 117) had at least 1 consultant respond. Of the 117 trusts that responded, 60 (51.2%) had submitted data to the NBOCAP. A total of 549 consultants received the questionnaire, and 159 (29.0%) consultants responded. Fifty-one per cent (n = 60) of the trusts had submitted data to the NBOCAP. Reasons for data submission included the following: comparison of a units' data with national data (56.8%), a national audit improves outcomes (45.9%) and generation of information for use at a local level (42.6%). The main reasons for non-submission were as follows: lack of technical support (23.6%), lack of funding (19.6%) and lack of dedicated audit time (18.9%). Ninety-six (60.4%) consultants felt that the audit report should identify individual trust results. Fifty-three per cent of consultants (n = 87) rated their trusts' resources for audit as being very poor or poor.
conclusionConsultant members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) within hospital trusts in the UK feel participation in the National Bowel Cancer Audit improves patients' quality of care and surgical outcomes. Increased awareness of the benefits of the NBOCAP and improved allocation of resources from hospital trusts could improve participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21287225What 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.