Literature DB >> 19660839

[Self-audit and tutor accreditation].

Matilde Ezquerra Lezcano1, Carmen Tamayo Ojeda, Silvia Calvet Junoy, Esteve Avellana Revuelta, María Antonia Vila-Coll, Concepción Morera Jordán.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the experience of using self-audit (SA) as a means of accrediting family and community medicine tutors, to analyse the knowledge that the tutors have on this self-assessment methodology, and to record their opinions on this method.
DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive study and analysis of an opinion questionnaire.
SETTING: Family and community medicine teaching units (TU) in Catalonia. PARTICIPANTS: Tutors from family and community medicine TU in Catalonia (July 2001-July 2008).
METHODS: Training of the tutors in SA methodology, creation of a reference group and a correction cycle. Correction by peers of the SAs performed by the tutors according to previously determined criteria and subsequent issue of a report-feedback. Self-administered questionnaire by a group of TU tutors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN OUTCOMES: A total of 673 SA were performed. The most frequent topic selected was diabetes mellitus in 27.9% of cases. The overall evaluation of the SA from a methodological point of view was correct in 44.5% of cases, improvable in 45.3%, and deficient in 10.2%. A total of 300 opinion questionnaires were issued. The response rate was 151/300 (50.03%). On the question about the usefulness of the SA in professional practice, 12% considered it very useful, 56% adequate, and 32% of little use or not useful. As regards whether it was a good means for the re-accreditation or accreditation of tutors, 66% considered that it was not.
CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage of the SAs analysed are not carried out correctly, which indicates that tutors do not know this self-assessment method very well. They consider that SAs are a useful tool for improving clinical practice, but not a good means for accreditation and re-accreditation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19660839      PMCID: PMC7022134          DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2009.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aten Primaria        ISSN: 0212-6567            Impact factor:   1.137


  15 in total

1.  Mindful practice.

Authors:  R M Epstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Reviewing audit: barriers and facilitating factors for effective clinical audit.

Authors:  G Johnston; I K Crombie; H T Davies; E M Alder; A Millard
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-03

Review 3.  Self-assessment in the health professions: a reformulation and research agenda.

Authors:  Kevin W Eva; Glenn Regehr
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 4.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

Authors:  G Jamtvedt; J M Young; D T Kristoffersen; M A O'Brien; A D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-04-19

5.  Self-assessment and continuing professional development: the Canadian perspective.

Authors:  Ivan Silver; Craig Campbell; Bernard Marlow; Joan Sargeant
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.355

6.  Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group.

Authors:  L A Bero; R Grilli; J M Grimshaw; E Harvey; A D Oxman; M A Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-15

7.  Improving problem oriented medical records through self-audit.

Authors:  G L Dickie; M J Bass
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1980-03       Impact factor: 0.493

8.  Medical audit in general practice. Butterworth Prize Essay 1981.

Authors:  M G Sheldon
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract Occas Pap       Date:  1982

9.  Impact of patient feedback on the interpersonal skills of general practice registrars: results of a longitudinal study.

Authors:  M Greco; A Brownlea; J McGovern
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 6.251

10.  Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.

Authors:  David Bruce; Katie Phillips; Ross Reid; David Snadden; Ronald Harden
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-03-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.