Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

Improving the reporting of orthodontic clinical audits: an evaluation

British Dental Journal (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting of orthodontic audits published between 2013-2019 following the introduction of a submission template in 2015.

Methods An audit reporting checklist was developed, with each audit independently assessed by two assessors. Based on the previous quality checklist, an overall score of 4 or less represented poor reporting, 5-8 fair reporting and 9 or greater good reporting. All data variables were collected in a pre-piloted Excel data collection sheet.

Results One hundred and fifty-nine audits were identified. A range of reporting scores were evident. The overall mean score was 10.1 (SD 1.5). Reporting scores showed improvement during the study timeframe, with a general increase in scores evident from 2015. Higher scores were achieved by multi-cycle audits (coefficient [coef]: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.38, 2.62, p <0.001). Lower scores were achieved by partial audits (coef: -1.8, 95% CI: -2.23, -1.36, p <0.001), but scores increased every year (coef: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.27, p <0.001).

Conclusions The reporting of orthodontic audits is rated as good, with yearly improvement in scores evident. The introduction of a submission template had a positive effect on the reporting of audits. Recommendations to further improve the quality of audits are outlined.

Key points

  • This study evaluated the reporting of orthodontic audits following the introduction of a submission template.

  • Overall, the reporting of orthodontic audits is rated as good with yearly improvement in scores evident.

  • However, the majority of audits were single cycle. Common shortcomings associated with single-cycle audits include a failure to both re-audit and assess the impact on clinical practice following implementation of change.

  • Recommendations to further improve the quality of audits are outlined.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lock P, McElroy B, Mackenzie M. The hidden cost of clinical audit: a questionnaire study of NHS staff. Health Policy 2000; 51: 181-190.

  2. John C M, Mathew D E, Gnanalingham M G. An audit of paediatric audits. Arch Dis Child 2004; 89: 1128-1129.

  3. Boyle A, Keep J. Clinical audit does not work, is quality improvement any better? Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 2018; 79: 508-510.

  4. Guryel E, Acton K, Patel S. Auditing orthopaedic audit. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2008; 90: 675-678.

  5. Bowie P, Bradley N A, Rushmer R. Clinical audit and quality improvement - time for a rethink? J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18: 42-48.

  6. Tabandeh H, Thompson G M. Auditing ophthalmology audits. Eye (Lond) 1995; 9: 1-5.

  7. Gnanalingham J, Gnanalingham M G, Gnanalingham K K. An audit of audits: are we completing the cycle? J R Soc Med 2001; 94: 288-289.

  8. Iqbal H J, Pidikiti P. Audit of orthopaedic audits in an english teaching hospital: are we closing the loop? Open Orthop J 2010; 4: 188.

  9. Hearnshaw H M, Harker R M, Cheater F M et al. Are audits wasting resources by measuring the wrong things? A survey of methods used to select audit review criteria. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 24-28.

  10. Cafazzo J A, St-Cyr O. From discovery to design: the evolution of human factors in healthcare. Healthc Q 2012; 15: 24-29.

  11. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Clinical Audit: A Manual for Lay Members of the Clinical Audit Team. 2012. Available at https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/developing-clinical-audit-patient-panels.pdf (accessed April 2021).

  12. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.

  13. NICE. Principles for best practice in clinical audit. 2002. Available at https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/About/what-we-do/Into-practice/principles-for-best-practice-in-clinical-audit.pdf (accessed April 2021).

  14. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Best Practice in Clinical Audit. 2020. Available at https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FINAL-Best-Practice-in-Clinical-Audit-2020.pdf (accessed April 2021).

  15. Lawrence M, Griew K, Derry J et al. Auditing audits: use and development of the Oxfordshire Medical Audit Advisory Group rating system. BMJ 1994; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6953.513.

  16. Fleming P S, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A et al. Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? Eur J Orthod 2013; 35: 244-248.

  17. Sarkis-Onofre R, Poletto-Neto V, Cenci M S et al. CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials in dentistry. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 122: 20-26.

  18. Righi L, Ourahmoune A, Béné N et al. Effects of a pressure-ulcer audit and feedback regional programme at 1 and 2 years in nursing homes: A prospective longitudinal study. PLoS One 2020; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233471.

  19. Anwar H, Waring D. Improving patient safety through a clinical audit spiral: prevention of wrong tooth extraction in orthodontics. Br Dent J 2017; 223: 48-52.

  20. King E, Shekaran L, Muthukrishnan A. Improving the quality of endodontic record keeping through clinical audit. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 373-380.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King’s College London, Floor 25, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, UK

    Amanveer Benning, Matin Ali Madadian & Jadbinder Seehra

  2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland

    Nikolaos Pandis

Authors
  1. Amanveer Benning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matin Ali Madadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikolaos Pandis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jadbinder Seehra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jadbinder Seehra.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benning, A., Ali Madadian, M., Pandis, N. et al. Improving the reporting of orthodontic clinical audits: an evaluation. Br Dent J (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2953-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-021-2953-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links