P J Cannell1. 1. University of Essex, Southend on Sea, SS1 1LW, UK. pjcann@essex.ac.uk
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A mandatory scheme for clinical audit in the general dental services (GDS) was launched in April 2001. No evaluation of this mandatory scheme exists in the literature. This study provides an evaluation of this scheme. More recently a new dental contract was introduced in the general dental services (GDS) in April 2006. Responsibility for clinical audit activities was devolved to primary care trusts (PCTs) as part of their clinical governance remit. METHODS: All GDPs within Essex were contacted by letter and invited to participate in the research. A qualitative research method was selected for this evaluation, utilising audio-taped semi-structured research interviews with eight general dental practitioners (GDPs) who had taken part in the GDS clinical audit scheme and who fitted the sampling criteria and strategy. The evaluation focused on dentists' experiences of the scheme. RESULTS: The main findings from the analysis of the GDS scheme data suggest that there is clear evidence of change following audit activities occurring within practices and for the benefit of patients. However, often it is the dentist only that undertakes a clinical audit project rather than the dental team, there is a lack of dissemination of project findings beyond the individual participating practices, very little useful feedback provided to participants who have completed a project and very limited use of formal re-auditing of a particular topic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evaluation of the GDS clinical audit scheme. Organisations who propose to undertake clinical audit activities in conjunction with dentistry in the future may benefit from incorporating and/or developing some findings from this evaluation into their project design and avoiding others.
INTRODUCTION: A mandatory scheme for clinical audit in the general dental services (GDS) was launched in April 2001. No evaluation of this mandatory scheme exists in the literature. This study provides an evaluation of this scheme. More recently a new dental contract was introduced in the general dental services (GDS) in April 2006. Responsibility for clinical audit activities was devolved to primary care trusts (PCTs) as part of their clinical governance remit. METHODS: All GDPs within Essex were contacted by letter and invited to participate in the research. A qualitative research method was selected for this evaluation, utilising audio-taped semi-structured research interviews with eight general dental practitioners (GDPs) who had taken part in the GDS clinical audit scheme and who fitted the sampling criteria and strategy. The evaluation focused on dentists' experiences of the scheme. RESULTS: The main findings from the analysis of the GDS scheme data suggest that there is clear evidence of change following audit activities occurring within practices and for the benefit of patients. However, often it is the dentist only that undertakes a clinical audit project rather than the dental team, there is a lack of dissemination of project findings beyond the individual participating practices, very little useful feedback provided to participants who have completed a project and very limited use of formal re-auditing of a particular topic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evaluation of the GDS clinical audit scheme. Organisations who propose to undertake clinical audit activities in conjunction with dentistry in the future may benefit from incorporating and/or developing some findings from this evaluation into their project design and avoiding others.