Use of clinical audit for revalidation: is it sufficiently accurate?
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 10 years. 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.
Jutley
R S
RS
Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital, Scotland, United Kingdom.
McKinley
A
A
Hobeldin
M
M
Mohamed
A
A
Youngson
G G
GG
D002568:Certification / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D002983:Clinical Competence; D003201:Computers; D003625:Data Collection / Q000592:standards; D005568:Forms and Records Control; D006801:Humans; D008485:Medical Audit / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D008499:Medical Records / Q000592:standards; D010372:Pediatrics / Q000592:standards; D011786:Quality Control; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012606:Scotland; D012984:Software; D013503:Surgery Department, Hospital / Q000592:standards