Objective To evaluate the quality of paediatric audits published from 2005–2006, utilising the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001) to define standard quality.
Methods PubMed, EmBase and EBSCO searching was performed using MeSH terms for relevant articles: audit, child, neonate and paediatric. Predefined core elements of audits were used as inclusion criteria for entry of an article into this study. These were: (1) an article deals with a healthcare topic; (2) a standard is predefined; (3) actual practice is evaluated; (4) actual practice is compared with the standard and (5) re-audit. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence was used. This incorporates two elements: (a) quality of the study ranked 1-5 and (b) level of recommendation ranked A-D.
Results Excluding non-retrieved articles and adult-based articles, the search yielded 293 (100%) paediatric healthcare related articles. Standards were defined in 131 (44.71%) articles. Applying the preselected audit tool, the quality of the standard was defined as follows: 3 (2.29%) level 1, 16 (12.21%) level 2, 5 (3.817%) level 3, 3 (2.29%) level 4, 104 (79.389%) level 5. Audit against standard was performed in 110 (37.54%) articles. These were graded as: 3 (2.727%) level 1, 21 (19.09%) level 2, 5 (4.545%) level 3, 28 (25.45%) level 4, 53 (48.18%) level 5. 11 (3.754%) articles contained re-audits. Of the 162 (55.29%) paediatric studies rejected, 71 (43.827%) described practice observations.
Conclusion Paediatric audits continue to be published utilising guidelines which are at the base of the evidence-based pyramid.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.