Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS, Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS, Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds), Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK, George G Youngson PhD, FRCS
{"title":"临床审核用于再验证:是否足够准确?","authors":"Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS, Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS, Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds), Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK, George G Youngson PhD, FRCS","doi":"10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p> <b>Abstract</b> In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.</p>","PeriodicalId":79407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","volume":"21 3","pages":"71-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of clinical audit for revalidation: Is it sufficiently accurate?\",\"authors\":\"Rajwinder S Jutley BSc, MB, ChB, MRCS, Aileen Mckinley MB, ChB, FRCS, Mohammed Hobeldin MBBCh, MS, MD, FRCSGlasg, FRCS(Paeds), Anies Mohamed FCS(SA), FRCSGlasg, FRCSEd, FRCS(Paeds)UK, George G Youngson PhD, FRCS\",\"doi\":\"10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p> <b>Abstract</b> In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of quality in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"21 3\",\"pages\":\"71-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of quality in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of quality in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1440-1762.2001.00414.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Use of clinical audit for revalidation: Is it sufficiently accurate?
Abstract In order to provide better patient care, clinicians will be subject to revalidation and re-certification. This may be partially based on existing and ongoing data collection, yet many units fail to incorporate mechanisms that validate the data that may be used. The accuracy of audit data was evaluated in a unit that has been using commercially available audit software for over 10years. A total of 655 consecutive surgical admissions were documented over a 6-month period and errors in data collection and entry were gathered and analyzed. An overall accuracy of 90.5% was confirmed but examination of the data found them to be open to misinterpretation. Moreover, 13% of errors were made during a single week when locum staff were involved. The study highlights the fallibility of data collection during audit, and urges caution if using such data when judging performance-related issues as part of the process of appraisal.