ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1997
Training for audit: lessons still to be learned.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Summative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Training for audit.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Teaching audit--lessons from summmative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Summative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Summative assessment of vocational training: to be required by law.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Audit.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
- Audit.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1997Article
Corrections and comments
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAudit is a criterion for training in general practice, and registrars are reliant on their trainers' teaching of basic audit methods. Their ability to teach this had been assumed, but registrars' projects submitted as part of summative assessment offered an opportunity to test this.
aimTo test trainers' knowledge of basic audit methods. Their knowledge was based on an ability to recognize key audit criteria using a marking schedule that they had helped to create.
methodAll 158 trainers in the west of Scotland were asked to mark five general practice registrar audit projects using a marking schedule consisting of five independent criteria. Each project had one criterion that was below a level of minimum competence, as agreed by a group of 'expert' assessors.
resultsA total of 114 trainers (72%) completed the marking exercise of five audit projects. Three (3%) correctly identified the five criteria that were below minimum competence. They did this by highlighting many other criteria not below minimum competence. For all trainers, there was a direct relationship between the number of criteria they correctly identified as being below minimum competence and the total number of other criteria that they incorrectly identified.
conclusionTrainers are failing to recognize basic audit methodology using a marking schedule they themselves helped to design. This has implications for their ability to teach audit to their registrars and may explain some of the difficulty in implementing audit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9219404PMC1313002What 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.