on 13/6/02 8:49 am, A.J.O'rourke at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Dear all:
> As part of some model answers I am writing for a masters course, the following
> question has come up:
>
> Where would the results of an audit sit in the "hierarchy of evidence"?
>
I would say that they do not sit in the hierarchy at all. Audit is not
research, it is quality assurance. The hierarchy of evidence refers to the
validity, reliability and appropriateness of research findings - it is about
knowing whether and by how much an intervention/event is effective/causal.
Audit is about measuring whether care reaches standards considered to be
good practice. Research may well provide evidence by which we set audit
standards but audit on the whole does not constitute research.
You could say that:
Research is finding out what is the right thing to do or the right way to do
it
Audit is finding out if you are actually doing the right thing or doing
things the right way
(Just to complicate matters, sometimes finding out whether care reaches
certain standards does constitute research. This would be the case if it is
finding out new knowledge.)
--
Kev (Kevork) Hopayian
GP, The Surgery, Main St, Leiston, Suffolk, IP16 4ES, England
Tel +44 (0)1728 830526
Fax +44 (0)1728 832029
|