ReviewBMJ open2017
Understanding how and why audits work: protocol for a realist review of audit programmes to improve hospital care.
Review in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Heart Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study and Medical Audit.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Implementation of Home-Based Telerehabilitation of Patients With Stroke in the United States: Protocol for a Realist Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- A Simple Admission Order-set Improves Adherence to Canadian Guidelines for Hospitalized Patients With Severe Ulcerative Colitis.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Multi-inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19: a nursing perspective experience report from a high-income tertiary paediatric hospital context.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2023Article
- Audit tool for assessing child sexual abuse prevention content in school policy and curriculum.Heliyon · 2019Article
- Evaluating concordance between government administrative data and externally collected data among high-volume government health facilities in Uttar Pradesh, India.Global health action · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMany types of audits are commonly used in hospital care to promote quality improvements. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of audits is mixed. The objectives of this proposed realist review are (1) to understand how and why audits might, or might not, work in terms of delivering the intended outcome of improved quality of hospital care and (2) to examine under what circumstances audits could potentially be effective. This protocol will provide the rationale for using a realist review approach and outline the method. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted using an iterative four-stage approach. The first and second steps have already been executed. The first step was to develop an initial programme theory based on the literature that explains how audits are supposed to work. Second, a systematic literature search was conducted using relevant databases. Third, data will be extracted and coded for concepts relating to context, outcomes and their interrelatedness. Finally, the data will be synthesised in a five-step process: (1) organising the extracted data into evidence tables, (2) theming, (3) formulating chains of inference from the identified themes, (4) linking the chains of inference and formulating CMO configurations and (5) refining the initial programme theory. The reporting of the review will follow the 'Realist and Meta-Review Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards' (RAMESES) publication standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require formal ethical approval. A better understanding of how and why these audits work, and how context impacts their effectiveness, will inform stakeholders in deciding how to tailor and implement audits within their local context. We will use a range of dissemination strategies to ensure that findings from this realist review are broadly disseminated to academic and non-academic audiences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039882.
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.