Asthma audit for enthusiasts and sceptics

Citation

Neville R, Hoskins G & Smith B (1998) Asthma audit for enthusiasts and sceptics. Asthma in General Practice, 6 (2), pp. 19-22. http://www.thepcrj.org/journ/vol9_2_and_earlier/GPIAG_Vol_6_No_2.pdf

Abstract
Objective: To explore the possible link between audit activity and improved clinical outcome. Method: Data was collected from two consecutive correspondence surveys of UK general practices. Eighty four practices completed both surveys, recording details on 2470 patients (audit cycle group), 141 practices participated in 1994 only and recorded details on 4262 patients (1994 comparison group), and 133 practices participated in 1995 only and recorded details on 3922 patients (1995 comparison group). General practitioner (GP) and nurse consultations, asthma symptoms, days lost from work or school, asthma attacks, and emergency hospital admissions and accident and emergency (A&E) attendances due to acute severe asthma were recorded in each group. Results: In the comparison groups between 1994 and 1995 there were less GP consultations and less asthma attacks, but no other significant (at p less than 0.01) changes. The patients from the audit cycle practices experienced fewer GP consultations, more nurse consultations, fewer symptoms, fewer days lost from work or school, fewer asthma attacks and fewer A&E attendances. Conclusion: Large primary care studies have problems with validity, choice of outcome measures and analysis. Audit enthusiasts will interpret the findings as showing that asthma audit improves patient care. Sceptics will claim that those practices who seek to improve patient care will enrol in audit packages.

Journal
Asthma in General Practice: Volume 6, Issue 2