Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34271925›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Hidden labour: the skilful work of clinical audit data collection and its implications for secondary use of data via integrated health IT.

Lynn McVey, Natasha Alvarado, Joanne Greenhalgh, Mai Elshehaly, Chris P Gale, Julia Lake, Roy A Ruddle, Dawn Dowding, Mamas Mamas, Richard Feltbower and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lynn McVeyFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. L.McVey@bradford.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2009-7682
Natasha AlvaradoFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Joanne GreenhalghSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Mai ElshehalyWolfson Centre for Applied Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Chris P GaleSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Julia LakeLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK.
Roy A RuddleSchool of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Dawn DowdingSchool of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mamas MamasSchool of Primary, Community & Social Care, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Richard FeltbowerSchool of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca RandellFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
University of Bradford · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBKeele University · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecondary use of data via integrated health information technology is fundamental to many healthcare policies and processes worldwide. However, repurposing data can be problematic and little research has been undertaken into the everyday practicalities of inter-system data sharing that helps explain why this is so, especially within (as opposed to between) organisations. In response, this article reports one of the most detailed empirical examinations undertaken to date of the work involved in repurposing healthcare data for National Clinical Audits.

methodsFifty-four semi-structured, qualitative interviews were carried out with staff in five English National Health Service hospitals about their audit work, including 20 staff involved substantively with audit data collection. In addition, ethnographic observations took place on wards, in 'back offices' and meetings (102 h). Findings were analysed thematically and synthesised in narratives.

resultsAlthough data were available within hospital applications for secondary use in some audit fields, which could, in theory, have been auto-populated, in practice staff regularly negotiated multiple, unintegrated systems to generate audit records. This work was complex and skilful, and involved cross-checking and double data entry, often using paper forms, to assure data quality and inform quality improvements.

conclusionsIf technology is to facilitate the secondary use of healthcare data, the skilled but largely hidden labour of those who collect and recontextualise those data must be recognised. Their detailed understandings of what it takes to produce high quality data in specific contexts should inform the further development of integrated systems within organisations.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditState MedicineBiomedical TechnologyData CollectionHospitalsHumansClinical auditData collectionData qualityElectronic patient recordsInteroperabilityRegistries

Identifiers

PMID34271925
PMCPMC8284699
OpenAlexW3177525494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.