|
pubmed:abstractText |
Hypertension is a common condition almost exclusively managed by general practitioners (GPs), making it an ideal subject for practice-based audit. However, the conduct and interpretation of such audits is complex. Even minor variations in methodology can produce dramatic differences in results obtained. We used a focus group of seven GPs with a special interest in audit to establish a standardized method for the planning and reporting of audits for the management of hypertension. In order to enhance the reliability and comparability of hypertension audits, 13 key areas of audit methodology were produced by the focus group. Eleven audits were identified in a literature search using pre-determined selection criteria. These were then assessed to compare their methodology with the criteria produced by the focus group. None of the recently published audits in this subject covered all of the key areas (range: 27-65% of the areas covered). One key area, that of digit preference, was not mentioned by any. Other problematic key areas included the selection of patient records without bias, the determination of the prevalence of hypertension, the number of recordings used to determine the diagnosis of hypertension and its subsequent control, the time period examined by the audit, and the approach taken to notes containing an inadequate number of blood pressure recordings. Significant variability in the methods used by different authors in these key areas calls into question the reliability of their results and makes comparisons between them very difficult. We propose a standardized method for hypertension audits comprising 13 key areas, which will enhance the reliability of results and facilitate such comparisons.
|
