R Baker1, R C Fraser. 1. Eli Lilly National Clinical Audit Centre, Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is commonly accepted that ownership is an important factor in determining the acceptability and use of protocols or guidelines. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether Medical Audit Advisory Groups (MAAGs) are prepared to accept and use audit protocols developed systematically by an external agency. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 105 MAAG chairmen in England and Wales to seek their views on the external development of protocols, the inclusion of evidence-based prioritized criteria, the general design of the protocols issued by the Lilly Audit Centre and the numbers of practices reported by MAAGs as making use of at least one of the first four protocols issued. RESULTS: Ninety-five MAAGs (90%) responded. Of these, 86% were in favour of the external development of protocols, and 98% and 94%, respectively, found evidence-based and prioritized criteria valuable; 98% felt the overall design and content of the Audit Centre protocols were excellent or good. A total of 1018 practices was known to have made use of one of these protocols, 261 taking part in multi-practice audits organized by their MAAGs. CONCLUSION: Ownership is not necessarily more important than scientific credibility and/or perceived utility. Externally developed audit protocols containing evidence-based, prioritized review criteria are acceptable to MAAGs, which are prepared to recommend their use in practice. Accordingly, such systematically developed protocols offer a promising and practical method for improving clinical effectiveness. Further research is needed, however, to determine the comparative impact on standards of care of protocols and other methods such as clinical guidelines.
BACKGROUND: It is commonly accepted that ownership is an important factor in determining the acceptability and use of protocols or guidelines. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether Medical Audit Advisory Groups (MAAGs) are prepared to accept and use audit protocols developed systematically by an external agency. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 105 MAAG chairmen in England and Wales to seek their views on the external development of protocols, the inclusion of evidence-based prioritized criteria, the general design of the protocols issued by the Lilly Audit Centre and the numbers of practices reported by MAAGs as making use of at least one of the first four protocols issued. RESULTS: Ninety-five MAAGs (90%) responded. Of these, 86% were in favour of the external development of protocols, and 98% and 94%, respectively, found evidence-based and prioritized criteria valuable; 98% felt the overall design and content of the Audit Centre protocols were excellent or good. A total of 1018 practices was known to have made use of one of these protocols, 261 taking part in multi-practice audits organized by their MAAGs. CONCLUSION: Ownership is not necessarily more important than scientific credibility and/or perceived utility. Externally developed audit protocols containing evidence-based, prioritized review criteria are acceptable to MAAGs, which are prepared to recommend their use in practice. Accordingly, such systematically developed protocols offer a promising and practical method for improving clinical effectiveness. Further research is needed, however, to determine the comparative impact on standards of care of protocols and other methods such as clinical guidelines.