Saturday, December 20, 2014
Text Size
Welcome, Guest
Username Password: Remember me

Most and least effective national audits
(1 viewing) (1) Guest
Welcome to the National Audit Discussion Board!

TOPIC: Most and least effective national audits

Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #33

CASC are currently working on the data from the December 2011 'state of clinical audit survey'. Thanks again to all of those who took the time to get involved. A detailed report will be published in April.

As part of the survey, respondents are asked to select the 'most effective' and 'least effective' national audits. Although this is a subjective, opinion-based survey, the results from 2010 and 2011 have shown remarkable consistency.

Top 3 'most effective' national audits in 2011 survey:
1. Sentinel Stroke (1)
2. MINAP (2)
3. National Falls and Bone Health (3)

You can see by the positions in parenthesis that the results have not altered from the 2010 survey.

There is a slight alteration in the top 3 'least effective' national audits in the 2011 survey:
1. Continence Care (1)
2. Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (new entry)
3. National Falls and Bone Health (2)

The only change from 2011 results compared to 2010 was the new Heavy Menstrual Bleeding Audit making its way up to number two in the 'least effective' NCA's chart.

Do people have any views on this? And what does it say that for the second year running the National Falls and Bone Health audit has been voted into the Top 3 in both the 'most effective' and 'least effective' rankings?

For information, the number of respondents for each survey was comparable - 182 in 2010 and 159 in 2011.

Re: Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #37

  • Cortical
  • OFFLINE
  • Hiya! Ooh look - tiny icons...
Surveys comparing national audits are a problem to answer for me. I'm not a manager, just a bod, so I only work on a few of the multitude of national audits. Luckily I seem to get the ones which are held in high regard - though even they have room for improvement.

I've overheard plenty of [bad] comments in the office about the HMB audit, but the vast majority of national audits are completely unknown to me, so I can't really comment.

Do you invite comment from the heads of these audits - you know, like the TV news would do? "We asked John Smith, national lead on the HMB audit, for a comment on the findings, but he refused to be interviewed."
Last Edit: 2 years, 8 months ago by Cortical. Reason: Clarifying meaning

Re: Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #44

Hello all,

On the subject of NCA feedback, HQIP has today launched the National Clinical Audit Feedback Mechanism, announced at the end of 2011 as part our four-point strategy for quality improvement.

The system covers all audits listed in Quality Accounts (including the NCAPOP audits which HQIP commissions) and enables you to give feedback about audits on a continuous basis, directly to HQIP.

Links are available via the 'News & Events' area of the HQIP website - www.hqip.org.uk/national-clinical-audit-feedback-mechanism-2

Any queries, whatsoever, please don't hesitate to contact us at HQIP.

Many thanks,

James Thornton, Communications Manager, HQIP
Last Edit: 2 years, 8 months ago by admin.

Re: Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #56

  • Cortical
  • OFFLINE
  • Hiya! Ooh look - tiny icons...
An open-ended SurveyMonkey questionnaire? That's what HQIP have plumped
for? Seriously?

While I can see the argument for providing an anonymous feedback route,
surely there needs to be some kind of discussion area where people can
thrash out which improvements are most urgent or useful? That would partly
do HQIP's job for them by providing analysis and suggesting solutions, and
perhaps allow a cathartic release of the frustration borne of working with
certain audits.

Monthly internal reviews and published quarterly reports hardly promise a
fast, consensus-based or - perhaps most crucially - transparent way to
kick underwhelming audits into shape. If something's wrong with an audit,
let's not wait six months or more simply to agree that there's a problem
and then look at fixing it! Get the contractors into an ongoing
conversation with the clients. Make us feel included in the audit rather
than imposed upon by it.

Finally, I don't feel at all confident that any and all criticism will be
aired and assessed. If anonymous submission is the only feedback route,
it allows things to be quietly swept under the rug if so desired.

It seems like yet another good HQIP idea that's been badly fudged, but
we'll see. I am more than happy to stand up and say I was wrong if it
turns out to be a blinding success.

Re: Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #58

Hello all,

On the subject of NCA feedback, HQIP has today launched the National Clinical Audit Feedback Mechanism, announced at the end of 2011 as part our four-point strategy for quality improvement.

The system covers all audits listed in Quality Accounts (including the NCAPOP audits which HQIP commissions) and enables you to give feedback about audits on a continuous basis, directly to HQIP.

To go straight to the Feedback Mechanism, please click this link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/hqipncafm

To find out more about the Feedback Mechanism itself and how it works, please click this link:
http://www.hqip.org.uk/national-clinical...eedback-mechanism-2/

Any queries, whatsoever, please don't hesitate to contact us at: communications@hqip.org.uk

Many thanks,

James Thornton, Communications Manager, HQIP

Re: Most and least effective national audits 2 years, 8 months ago #80

I have to echo the comments of Cortical in respect of HQIP's new Feedback Mechanism.

Surely a more logical approach would be to set up a discussion board inviting feedback. This would have several advantages over the model that HQIP have adopted four months after announcing their new plans for improving NCAs.

As Cortical points out the HQIP approach lacks transparency and appears to be adopting the long-winded route. From what I can see, comments are fed into the Feedback Mechanism, HQIP analyse comments on a monthly basis and a quarterly report is produced that includes analysis of comments. From a look at the reporting forms - those wanting to feedback have to follow HQIP's set template, can only comment up to a maximum of 200 words and are not invited to leave contact details for further follow-up, discussion or direct feedback.

Using a discussion board would enable open and transparent feedback. Comments made would be clear for all to see and duplication would be avoided (i.e. the HQIP model means that we may all be sending them the same issues!). NCA suppliers would gain instant feedback and could give direct replies to concerns raised. Cortical is also right that there needs to be more direct communication between NCA contractors and clients. While appreciating that HQIP's endeavours are clearly well meant, a much quicker more practical approach looks possible.

With this in mind, I wonder if this discussion board could serve as a useful acid test? Noting the initial post I see that the HMB audit was recently voted 2nd as the least effective NCA which suggests there is room for improvement. Given that the Continence Audit (voted number 1 for the last two years) is being over-hauled, I have set up a new discussion for direct feedback on the HMB audit. Let's see if this model has the scope to empower rapid, transparent, useful feedback that supplements HQIP's new mechanism.
Time to create page: 0.57 seconds