ArticleInternational journal of health care quality assurance2018
Audit and feedback in mental healthcare: staff experiences.
Article in International journal of health care quality assurance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Staff feedback within an acute mental health hospital: a qualitative interview study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Champion and audit and feedback strategy fidelity and their relationship to depression intervention fidelity: A mixed method study.SSM. Mental health · 2023Article
- Improving dementia care: insights from audit and feedback in interdisciplinary primary care sites.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Audit and feedback of therapist-assisted internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy within routine care: A quality improvement case study.Internet interventions · 2020Article
- A Quality Improvement Assessment of the Delivery of Mental Health Services among WTC Responders Treated in the Community.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
purposeAudit and feedback (A&F) often underlie implementation projects, described as a circular process; i.e. an A&F cycle. They are widely used, but effect varies with no apparent explanation. We need to understand how A&F work in real-life situations. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to describe and explore mental healthcare full A&F cycle experiences. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This is a naturalistic qualitative study that uses four focus groups and qualitative content analysis.
findingsStaff accepted the initial A&F stages, perceiving it to enhance awareness and reassure them about good practice. They were willing to participate in the full cycle and implement changes, but experienced poor follow-up and prioritization, not giving them a chance to own to the process. An important finding is the need for an A&F cycle facilitator. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research teams cannot be expected to be involved in implementing clinical care. Guidelines will keep being produced to improve service quality and will be expected to be practiced. This study gives insights into planning and tailoring A&F cycles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Tools to ease implementation are not enough, and the key seems to lie with facilitating a process using A&F. This study underscores leadership, designated responsibility and facilitation throughout a full audit cycle.
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.