Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8086911›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)

Auditing audits: use and development of the Oxfordshire Medical Audit Advisory Group rating system.

M Lawrence, K Griew, J Derry, J Anderson, J Humphreys

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A survey of audit activity in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. An audit of ANCA in routine clinical practice.Postgraduate medical journal · 1995
    Article
  6. Assessing the quality of care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995
    Article
  7. Folic acid prescription in pregnancy.The Ulster medical journal · 1995
    Article
  8. Clinical audit: time for a reappraisal?Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London
    Review
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

5 authors.

M LawrenceOxfordshire Medical Audit Advisory Group, University Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Radcliffe Infirmary.
K Griew
J Derry
J Anderson
J Humphreys

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the value of the Oxfordshire Medical Audit Advisory Group rating system in monitoring and stimulating audit activity, and to implement a development of the system.

designUse of the rating system for assessment of practice audits on three annual visits in Oxfordshire; development and use of an "audit grid" as a refinement of the system; questionnaire to all medical audit advisory groups in England and Wales.

settingAll 85 general practices in Oxfordshire; all 95 medical audit advisory groups in England and Wales.

main outcome measuresLevel of practices' audit activity as measured by rating scale and grid. Use of scale nationally together with perceptions of strengths and weaknesses as perceived by chairs of medical audit advisory groups.

resultsAfter one year Oxfordshire practices more than attained the target standards set in 1991, with 72% doing audit involving setting target standards or implementing change; by 1993 this had risen to 78%. Most audits were confined to chronic disease management, preventive care, and appointments. 38 of 92 medical audit advisory groups used the Oxfordshire group's rating scale. Its main weaknesses were insensitivity in assessing the quality of audits and failure to measure team involvement.

conclusionsThe rating system is effective educationally in helping practices improve and summatively for providing feedback to family health service authorities. The grid showed up weakness in the breadth of audit topics studied. IMPLICATIONS AND ACTION: Oxfordshire practices achieved targets set for 1991-2 but need to broaden the scope of their audits and the topics studied. The advisory group's targets for 1994-5 are for 50% of practices to achieve an audit in each of the areas of clinical care, access, communication, and professional values and for 80% of audits to include setting targets or implementing change.

Indexed as

EnglandFamily PracticeHumansMedical AuditProgram DevelopmentWales

Identifiers

PMID8086911
PMCPMC2542723

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.