Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34389635›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2021

Outliers from national audits: their analysis and use by the Care Quality Commission in quality assurance and regulation of healthcare services in England.

Helen Grote, Keiko Toma, Laura Crosby, Catherine Robson, Clare Palmer, Claire Land, Jessica Ball, Edward Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Standardising mechanical thrombectomy complication reporting: A Delphi consensus study to support guidance for national audit.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  2. In response to crisis, is versatility a reward or a necessity.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Helen GroteCare Quality Commission, London, UK helen.grote@nhs.net.
Keiko TomaCare Quality Commission, London, UK.
Laura CrosbyCare Quality Commission, London, UK.
Catherine RobsonCare Quality Commission, London, UK.
Clare PalmerKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Claire LandCare Quality Commission, London, UK.
Jessica BallCare Quality Commission, London, UK.
Edward BakerCare Quality Commission, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. As part of the intelligence-driven approach to regulation, the CQC works closely with national clinical audit bodies to identify key metrics which reflect quality of care and track the performance of providers against these metrics. Where outliers on national audits are identified that may reflect risks to patients, the CQC encourages the hospital to identify any learning points and implement changes to improve patient care.In this article, we describe the role of national audit outcomes in the regulatory process and how providers can use national audits to inform both quality assurance and quality improvement processes, with two illustrative case studies. We discuss the ongoing challenges with using audit data in the regulatory process and how these could be addressed.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditHealth ServicesAdultDelivery of Health CareEnglandHumansQuality Improvementaudits and feedbackcontinuous QIgovernancepatient safetystandards of care

Identifiers

PMID34389635
PMCPMC8439505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.