A comparative analysis of six audit systems for mental health nursing

Abstract

Purpose. To devise an analytical framework to help identify strengths and weaknesses in the audit process as specified by existing psychiatric nursing audit systems, in order to analyse current audit practice and identify improvements for incorporation in the Newcastle Clinical Audit Toolkit for Mental Health [1] Data sources. Published material relating to the following six systems: the Central Nottinghamshire Psychiatric Nursing Audit; Psychiatric Nursing Monitor', Standards of Care and Practice; Achievable Standards of Care; Quartz; and Quest. Data extraction. Comparison of the six systems according to an analytical framework derived from detailed empirical study (structures, processes and outcomes) of one of them in use and the educational evaluation literature. Examination of the extent to which guidance is provided for operating the systems and for wider process-related aspects of audit. Results of data synthesis. Five of the systems failed to specify some important elements of the audit process. Conceptually, the six systems can be divided into two main types: 'instrument-like' systems designed along psychometric lines and which emphasize the distance between the subjects of audit and the operators of the systems, and 'tool-like' systems which exploit opportunities for care setting staff to engage in the audit process. A third type of system is the locally-developed system which is offered to a wider audience but which does not make the same level of claim to universal applicability. Conclusion. The analytical framework allows different approaches to audit to be compared and contrasted not only according to the techniques used, but also according to process issues. The analysis of six systems revealed a variety of different techniques and procedures which can facilitate, in a methodologically rigorous manner, practitioner and other stakeholder involvement in audit processes.