|
British Geriatrics Society Clinical Practice Evaluation Committee
Submission of Clinical
Effectiveness Abstracts
Abstracts relating to “clinical effectiveness” – e.g. audit, guidelines, benchmarking, literature searches, service and practice review – are submitted to CPEC (the Clinical Practice Evaluation Committee) for adjudication. These abstracts will be submitted under the category of “Practice”
How to tell whether your abstract is "research" or "clinical effectiveness/practice" (or both)
Both research and clinical audit may involve measurement of patient outcomes, however the purpose is different. Be clear about your objectives, and concentrate on these 3 key questions:
- Is the purpose of your project to try and improve the quality of patient care?
- Will the project involve measuring current practice against standards?
- Does the project include anything being done to patients beyond their routine clinical management?
If your answers are 'yes' to the first 2 questions and 'no' to the third, your project is very likely to fall within the remit of clinical audit.
This table gives further details regarding differences between audit and research:
Research |
Clinical Audit |
| Purpose |
To provide new knowledge in order to set or change standards |
Tests conformity with evidence-based standards |
| Methods |
Randomised trials etc. |
Never involves allocation to different treatment groups
Completion of audit cycle includes identifying areas of non-conformity with evidence-based standards implementing practice changes to address these, and then re-auditing standards of care |
| Data Analysis |
Extensive statistical analysis |
Simple statistical analysis e.g. descriptive (means, frequencies) and unadjusted comparisons such as t-tests |
| Ethical Approval |
Always required |
Not required - however patient questionnaire surveys may be interpreted as 'doing something to patients beyond their routine management'. These should be designed to be minimally disruptive to patients, but even so,ethical approval may be required |
| Sample size |
Statistically powered calculation |
Sufficiently large case number to influence practice based on audit findings |
| Significance |
Statistical difference (hypothesis driven) |
Clinically meaningful performance indicators set against standards (e.g. acceptable adherence threshold may be set 100%, 90%, or 80% depending on the practice being audited and local factors) |
| Outcome |
Improved knowledge |
Improved clinical practice |
| Results, publication and applicability |
Generalisable
Publishable in peer reviewed journals
Findings influence clinical practice as a whole |
Relevant to designated setting
Audit methods and findings may be of wider interest (especially with completed audit cycles) and publishable
Findings influence activities of local teams (with responsibility to act on findings resting with clinical directorates
|
|
