Literature DB >> 9519525

Effective audit in general practice: a method for systematically developing audit protocols containing evidence-based review criteria.

R C Fraser1, K Khunti, R Baker, M Lakhani.   

Abstract

Though many general practitioners (GPs) now take part in audit, there is still concern about the extent to which participation in audit leads to improvements in practice. Improved methods are needed for the incorporation of research evidence into criteria for use in audit. In this paper, a six-stage systematic method is described for developing audit protocols containing prioritized evidence-based criteria. The stages are: selection of a topic, identification of key elements of care, focused literature reviews, prioritization of the criteria on the strength of the evidence and impact on outcome, preparation of full documentation, and peer review.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9519525      PMCID: PMC1409940     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  15 in total

Review 1.  Developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  J Grimshaw; N Freemantle; S Wallace; I Russell; B Hurwitz; I Watt; A Long; T Sheldon
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  1995-03

2.  Development of review criteria: linking guidelines and assessment of quality.

Authors:  R Baker; R C Fraser
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-08-05

3.  Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. A report by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors:  S H Woolf; R N Battista; G M Anderson; A G Logan; E Wang
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Is ownership more important than the scientific credibility of audit protocols? A survey of medical audit advisory groups.

Authors:  R Baker; R C Fraser
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 2.267

5.  Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents.

Authors:  D L Sackett
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Users' guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  R S Hayward; M C Wilson; S R Tunis; E B Bass; G Guyatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-08-16       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development.

Authors:  M Eccles; Z Clapp; J Grimshaw; P C Adams; B Higgins; I Purves; I Russell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-03-23

Review 8.  Non-pharmacological treatment of hypertension.

Authors:  M H Alderman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-07-30       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Authors:  A D Oxman; D J Cook; G H Guyatt
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-11-02       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Mortality in patients of the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic.

Authors:  C G Isles; L M Walker; G D Beevers; I Brown; H L Cameron; J Clarke; V Hawthorne; D Hole; A F Lever; J W Robertson
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  1986-04       Impact factor: 4.844

View more
  5 in total

1.  New Zealand and United Kingdom experiences with the RAND modified Delphi approach to producing angina and heart failure criteria for quality assessment in general practice.

Authors:  S A Buetow; G D Coster
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2000-12

2.  Randomised controlled trial of tailored strategies to implement guidelines for the management of patients with depression in general practice.

Authors:  R Baker; S Reddish; N Robertson; H Hearnshaw; B Jones
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  A clinical audit of the prescribing of celecoxib and rofecoxib in Australian rural general practice.

Authors:  Christopher Cutts; Adam LaCaze; Susan Tett
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  Expert consensus on the desirable characteristics of review criteria for improvement of health care quality.

Authors:  H M Hearnshaw; R M Harker; F M Cheater; R H Baker; G M Grimshaw
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

5.  Are audits wasting resources by measuring the wrong things? A survey of methods used to select audit review criteria.

Authors:  H M Hearnshaw; R M Harker; F M Cheater; R H Baker; G M Grimshaw
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.