Consider the audit cycle below to determine how far the report has progressed around the cycle.
Ref: A form to help learn and teach about assessing medical audit papers: BMJ 1991;303:1520-2
3 Things to consider
- Background Issues
- Methodological Issues
- Implications for clinical practice
Background issues
| Yes | No | Don’t know/ Not sure |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is this audit relevant to the quality of patient care? | |||
| 2 | Is the indication for undertaking the audit made explicit? | |||
| 3 (a) | Does the audit investigate routine practice? If not: |
|||
| (b) | Does the audit concern a non-standard, new or experimental procedure? | |||
| 4 | Does the audit concern a clinical issue characterised by | |||
| (a) | High volume workload? | |||
| (b) | High cost? | |||
| (c) | Local or wider concern? | |||
| (d) | High variability in price? | |||
| 5 (a) | Is there a consensus or partial consensus on the ideal mode of practice? If not: |
|||
| (b) | Is it realistic, at the present time, to attempt to develop a consensus on the issue? | |||
| 6 | Is the audit of: | |||
| (a) | Structure of care? | |||
| (b) | Process of care? | |||
| (c) | Outcome of care? | |||
Ref: A form to help learn and teach about assessing medical audit papers: BMJ 1991;303:1520-2
Methodological issues
| Yes | No | Don’t know/ Not sure |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Which, if any, of the following audit designs/approaches is used? | |||
| (a) | Case note review | |||
| (b) | Critical incident discussion | |||
| (c) | Critical incident monitoring | |||
| (d) | Routine data monitoring | |||
| (e) | Criterion based topic audit | |||
| (f) | Other | |||
| 2 (a) | Are the standards made explicit? | |||
| (b) | Are the standards implicit? | |||
| 3 | Is the process of standard setting described? | |||
| 4 (a) | Were the standards taken from external sources (for example, medical reports)? | |||
| (b) | Were the standards adapted from external sources? | |||
| (c) | Were the standards developed by the authors? | |||
| 5 | Was the audit based on aggregated data? | |||
| 6 | Is the data collection method one that can be used by most clinicians? | |||
| 7 | Are the methods described well enough for you to repeat the audit? | |||
| 8 (a) | Are the results compared explicitly with standards? | |||
| (b) | Are the results compared implicitly with standards? | |||
Ref: A form to help learn and teach about assessing medical audit papers: BMJ 1991;303:1520-2
Implications for clinical practice
| Yes | No | Don’t know/ Not sure |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Do the authors indicate whether practice needs to be altered? | |||
| 2 | Are you convinced by their arguments? | |||
| 3 | Are appropriate realistic changes suggested? | |||
| 4 | Are the resource implications of the changes discussed? | |||
| 5 | Were the suggested changes implemented? | |||
| 6 | Were the changes described well enough for them to be implemented in in your setting? | |||
| 7 | Was the impact of change evaluated? | |||
| 8 (a) | Did the change lead to the anticipated benefit If not: |
|||
| (b) | Were the reasons discussed? | |||
| 9 (a) | Were the benefits sustained? If not: |
|||
| (b) | Were the reasons discussed? | |||
| 10 | Were the standards revised as a result of the audit? | |||
| 11 | Were the areas requiring educational input identified? | |||
| 12 | Were opportunities for future audit projects identified? | |||
| 13 | Were opportunities for research identified? | |||
Ref: A form to help learn and teach about assessing medical audit papers: BMJ 1991;303:1520-2