Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit

Abstract

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, eVective training, dedicated staV, 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 eVective 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.

Why don't clinicians engage with quality improvement?

“…When questioned, clinicians typically assert that more time and more resources would enable them to take part in quality improvement. 6 However, a recent review of the literature on health professionals' views on clinician involvement in quality improvement 7 shows that the reasons for noninvolvement go much further and much deeper than these stock responses suggest.…”

Factors affecting the adoption of quality assurance technologies in healthcare

“…The first set of literature that might be expected to illuminate the problem is that concerned with diffusion and adoption of innovations across industry sectors in general (Meyer and Goes 1988;Rogers 2003) and more specifically on adoption processes and barriers in healthcare Factors Affecting the Adoption of Quality Assurance Technologies, JHOM 27(4)498-519. Gravel et al 2006;Adams et al 2011;Johnston et al 2000). The second set of literature is that which has concerned itself directly and specifically with quality assurance methods in healthcare (Donabedian 1980;Harvey 1991;Balogh 1998;Balogh 2001;D'Avolio 2008).…”

The discharge of patients with diabetes from Internal Medicine Units: a clinical audit

“…20 Based upon the findings pointed out in the retrospective phase, the clinical audit working group developed a simple instrument that could be used to improve the management of the patients with diabetes discharge from the hospital.…”