ArticleJRSM open2017
Reducing the blame culture through clinical audit in nuclear medicine: a mixed methods study.
Article in JRSM open, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts.BMJ open quality · 2024Review
- Comparative effectiveness of standard vs. AI-assisted PET/CT reading workflow for pre-treatment lymphoma staging: a multi-institutional reader study evaluation.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2023Article
- Physician engagement: a concept analysis.Journal of healthcare leadership · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the barriers and facilitators of doctors' engagement with clinical audit and to explore how and why these factors influenced doctors' decisions to engage with the NHS National Clinical Audit Programme.
designA single-embedded case study. Mixed methods sequential approach with explorative pilot study and follow-up survey. Pilot study comprised 13 semi-structured interviews with purposefully selected consultant doctors over a six-month period. Interview data coded and analysed using directed thematic content analysis with themes compared against the study's propositions. Themes derived from the pilot study informed the online survey question items. Exploratory factor analysis using STATA and descriptive statistical methods applied to summarise findings. Data triangulation techniques used to corroborate and validate findings across the different methodological techniques.
settingNHS National PET-CT Clinical Audit Programme.
participantsDoctors reporting on the Audit Programme.
main outcome measuresExtent of engagement with clinical audit, factors that influence engagement with clinical audit.
resultsOnline survey: 58/59 doctors responded (98.3%). Audit was found to be initially threatening (79%); audit was reassuring (85%); audit helped validate professional competence (93%); participation in audit improved reporting skills (76%). Three key factors accounted for 97.6% of the variance in survey responses: (1) perception of audit's usefulness, (2) a common purpose, (3) a supportive blame free culture of trust. Factor 1 influenced medical engagement most.
conclusionsThe study documents performance feedback as a key facilitator of medical engagement with clinical audit. It found that medical engagement with clinical audit was associated with reduced levels of professional anxiety and higher levels of perceived self-efficacy.
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.