ArticleHRB open research2026
Understanding how a national clinical audit is established, maintained and sustained using the Irish Hip Fracture Database as an exemplar: a realist evaluation protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is an increasing focus on clinical audit within the Irish Health System to drive quality improvement and standardise care, with many established and emerging clinical audits underway. Since the burden of data collection typically falls to busy clinical staff, understanding the impact of audit is especially crucial. However, the literature rarely explores how audits generate impact, for whom and in what context, despite the considerable effort invested in collecting this valuable data. This study will explore how a national clinical audit is established, maintained and sustained in order to maximise impact using the Irish Hip Fracture Database (IHFD) as an exemplar. The research will be conducted through a realist evaluation lens, which aims to determine what works, for whom, how and to what extent. Realist evaluation is a theory- based approach that uses mixed-methods to explore and answer the research question. Initially programme theories will be formulated through a review of the literature, qualitative interviews, and subsequently refined with an expert panel. The Initial Programme Theories (IPTs) will be refined through iterative rounds of consultation and context-mechanism-outcome configurations. This process will identify demi-regularities, which are semi-predictable patterns that occur often enough to be noticeable, but not universally or consistently across all contexts. These patterns will inform understanding of how the intervention (i.e. the audit) operates or impacts differently across varying contexts. Ultimately, this will inform the development of a middle-range theory to better understand developing and sustaining a clinical audit with meaningful impact. The resulting findings will have relevance and potentially inform and/or enhance the implementation and development of other audits. Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee in the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and at relevant healthcare conferences including patient and public focused conferences.
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.