Clinical audit in nephrology settings has shown encouraging results for improving quality of care, though current evidence requires further validation across different operating scenarios.
Does clinical audit improve quality of care in patients with chronic renal diseases?
While clinical audit is intended to improve quality of care, current evidence in nephrology settings is mixed and requires further validation.
Evaluation and improvement of quality of care provided to the patients are of crucial importance in the daily clinical practice and in the health policy planning and financing. Different tools have been developed, including incident analysis, health technology assessment and clinical audit. The clinical audit consist of measuring a clinical outcome or a process, against well-defined standards set on the principles of evidence-based medicine in order to identify the changes needed to improve the quality of care. In particular, patients suffering from chronic renal diseases, present many problems that have been set as topics for clinical audit projects, such as hypertension, anaemia and mineral metabolism management. Although the results of these studies have been encouraging, demonstrating the effectiveness of audit, overall the present evidence is not clearly in favour of clinical audit. These findings call attention to the need to further studies to validate this methodology in different operating scenarios. This review examines the principle of clinical audit, focusing on experiences performed in nephrology settings.
Pasquale Esposito (Wed,) conducted a review in Chronic renal diseases. Clinical audit was evaluated. Clinical audit in nephrology settings has shown encouraging results for improving quality of care, though current evidence requires further validation across different operating scenarios.