Assessing theworkofmedical auditadvisory groups inpromoting audit ingeneralpractice

Objectives-To determinetheroleof medicalauditadvisory groups inaudit activities ingeneral practice. Design-Postal questionnaire survey. Subjects-All 104 advisory groups in England andWalesin1994. Main measures-Monitoring audit:the methodsused to classify audits, the methodsusedbytheadvisory group to collect dataon auditsfrom general practices, theproportion of practices undertaking audit. Directing andcoordinatingaudits: topicsand number of practices participating inmultipractice audits. Results-The response ratewas 86.5%. In 1993-4, 54%oftheadvisory groups used theOxfordshire or Kirklees methodsfor classifying audits, or modifications of them.99% oftheadvisory groups collecteddataon auditactivities at least once between1991-2and1993-4. Visits, questionnaires, andothermethodswere usedto collect information fromallor samplesof practices in eachof the advisory group's areas. Some advisory groups useddifferent methodsindifferent years. In 1991-2, 57% ofallpractices participated in some audit, in 1992-3, 78%,andin1993-4, 86%.428multipractice audits were identified. Themost popular topic was diabetes. Conclusions-Advisory groups havebeen activein monitoring auditin general practice. However, themethodsusedto classify and collect information about audits ingeneral practices variedwidely. Thenumberofpractices undertaking audit increased between1991-2 and1993-4. The largenumber of multipractice audits supportstheviewthattheadvisory groups have directedand coordinated audit activities. Thisexampleofanational audit programme forgeneral practice may be helpful inothercountries inwhichthe