To read this content please select one of the options below:

Auditing the audit cycle: an open‐ended evaluation

K.R.S. Prasad (Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Warrington Hospital, Warrington, UK)
K.T.V. Reddy (Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Warrington Hospital, Warrington, UK)

Clinical Governance: An International Journal

ISSN: 1477-7274

Article publication date: 1 June 2004



Most studies looking into completion of the audit cycle, have investigated specific interventions rather than entire projects. This study was carried out to evaluate the successful completion of the audit cycle depending on whether or not recommendations were acted on; and to find out relevant confounding factors. This was a retrospective review of the recommendations of audits between March 1999 and October 2002. There were 29 projects with a total of 63 recommendations. While 24 had been implemented, action had been only initiated in two and was in progress in one. A total of 17 recommendations were still under discussion. There were three types of inaction – no action because of no recommendations (n=8), action no longer appropriate (n=1) and specific obstacles preventing implementation (n=10). There were no significant differences between the outcomes (Chi square=0.128, dF=1, p=0.720). Investigation into the outcomes of audit recommendations is a useful way of assessing the entire audit cycle. However it also throws up a number of contextual issues that can influence outcome and should be taken into account when monitoring change in clinical settings.



Prasad, K.R.S. and Reddy, K.T.V. (2004), "Auditing the audit cycle: an open‐ended evaluation", Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 110-114.



Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2004, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles