ReviewBMJ open quality2024
A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts.
Review in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing rare disease guideline development with real-world data: a method evaluation.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Fostering continuous quality improvement in a European rare disease network.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMulticentre comparative clinical audits have the potential to improve patient care, allow benchmarking and inform resource allocation. However, implementing effective and sustainable large-scale audit can be difficult within busy and resource-constrained contemporary healthcare settings. There are little data on what facilitates the successful implementation of multicentre audits. As healthcare environments are complex sociocultural organisational environments, implementing multicentre audits within them is likely to be highly context dependent.
objectiveWe aimed to examine factors that were influential in the implementation process of multicentre comparative audits within healthcare contexts-what worked, why, how and for whom?
methodsA realist review was conducted in accordance with the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards reporting standards. A preliminary programme theory informed two systematic literature searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature. The main context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations underlying the implementation processes of multicentre audits were identified and formed a final programme theory.
results69 original articles were included in the realist synthesis. Four discrete CMO configurations were deduced from this synthesis, which together made up the final programme theory. These were: (1) generating trustworthy data; (2) encouraging audit participation; (3) ensuring audit sustainability; and (4) facilitating audit cycle completion.
conclusionsThis study elucidated contexts, mechanisms and outcomes influential to the implementation processes of multicentre or national comparative audits in healthcare. The relevance of these contextual factors and generative mechanisms were supported by established theories of behaviour and findings from previous empirical research. These findings highlight the importance of balancing reliability with pragmatism within complex adaptive systems, generating and protecting human capital, ensuring fair and credible leadership and prioritising change facilitation.
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.