| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Papers |
Department of General Practice, The Queen's University of Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, Belfast, UK
I K Crombie, professor, E M Alder, senior lecturer
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Ninewells Medical School, Dundee, UK
H T O Davies, reader
Department of Management, University of St Andrews, St Katharine's West, St Andrews, Fife, UK
A Millard, research fellow
Scottish Clinical Audit Resource Centre, University of Glasgow, UK
Dr G Johnston, Department of General Practice, The Queen's University of Belfast, Dunluce Health Centre, 1 Dunluce Avenue, Belfast BT9 7HF, UK Objective—To review the literature on the benefits and disadvantages of clinical and medical audit, and to assess the main facilitators and barriers to conducting the audit process.
Design—A comprehensive literature review was undertaken through a thorough review of Medline and CINAHL databases using the keywords of "audit", "audit of audits", and "evaluation of audits" and a handsearch of the indexes of relevant journals for key papers.
Results—Findings from 93 publications were reviewed. These ranged from single case studies of individual audit projects through retrospective reviews of departmental audit programmes to studies of interface projects between primary and secondary care. The studies reviewed incorporated the experiences of a wide variety of clinicians, from medical consultants to professionals allied to medicine and from those involved in unidisciplinary and multidisciplinary ventures. Perceived benefits of audit included improved communication among colleagues and other professional groups, improved patient care, increased professional satisfaction, and better administration. Some disadvantages of audit were perceived as diminished clinical ownership, fear of litigation, hierarchical and territorial suspicions, and professional isolation. The main barriers to clinical audit can be classified under five main headings. These are lack of resources, lack of expertise or advice in project design and analysis, problems between groups and group members, lack of an overall plan for audit, and organisational impediments. Key facilitating factors to audit were also identified: they included modern medical records systems, effective training, dedicated staff, protected time, structured programmes, and a shared dialogue between purchasers and providers.
Conclusions—Clinical audit can be a valuable assistance to any programme which aims to improve the quality of health care and its delivery. Yet without a coherent strategy aimed at nurturing effective audits, valuable opportunities will be lost. Paying careful attention to the professional attitudes highlighted in this review may help audit to deliver on some of its promise.
(Quality in Health Care 2000;9:23–36)
Key Words: audit; attitudes; barriers; facilitating factors
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H Snooks, M Halter, Y Palmer, H Booth, and F Moore Hearing half the message? A re-audit of the care of patients with acute asthma by emergency ambulance crews in London Qual. Saf. Health Care, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 455 - 458. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Crossan, D. Curtis, and Y.-L. Ong Audit of psychiatric discharge summaries: completing the cycle Psychiatr. Bull., September 1, 2004; 28(9): 329 - 331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. N. Kasje, P. Denig, P. A. de Graeff, and F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp Physicians' views on joint treatment guidelines for primary and secondary care Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2004; 16(3): 229 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Beyer, F. Gerlach, U Flies, R Grol, Z Krol, A Munck, F Olesen, M O'Riordan, L Seuntjens, and J Szecsenyi The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe.: Results of a survey in 26 European countries Fam. Pract., August 1, 2003; 20(4): 443 - 451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G Harvey and M Wensing Methods for evaluation of small scale quality improvement projects Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2003; 12(3): 210 - 214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S M Campbell, M Hann, J Hacker, A Durie, A Thapar, and M O Roland Quality assessment for three common conditions in primary care: validity and reliability of review criteria developed by expert panels for angina, asthma and type 2 diabetes Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2002; 11(2): 125 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Walshe and T Freeman Effectiveness of quality improvement: learning from evaluations Qual. Saf. Health Care, March 1, 2002; 11(1): 85 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Wallin, A-M Bostrom, G Harvey, K Wikblad, and U Ewald Progress of unit based quality improvement: an evaluation of a support strategy Qual. Saf. Health Care, January 12, 2002; 11(4): 308 - 314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K M Mcpherson and B Pentland What changes are needed to provide better standards of stroke care? Qual. Saf. Health Care, September 1, 2001; 10(3): 131 - 132. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
