Interface Audit - Information Sheet
Contents
-
-
-
-
1.What is Interface Audit?
Interface Audit has been defined as complete audit cycles conducted by professionals from both primary and secondary care working together as a team to improve patient care.1
However an interface audit is not restricted to purely primary and secondary care. Other sectors and agencies can be involved in interface audit e.g. Ambulance Service, The Partnership Trust.
Chair: Dr Azhar Farooqi, GP and Director of the Primary Care Audit Group (PCAG). Tel: (0116) 2951482
The Leicestershire Interface Audit Group has an annual budget of approximately £95,000. This budget is provided by a levy being placed upon the audit budgets of the University Hospitals of Leicester, The Leicestershire Partnership Trust, East Midlands Ambulance Service and the Leicestershire Primary Care Audit Group. The budget is allocated to successful project applicants. All applications for funding need to be supplied to the Interface Audit Group on the Interface Audit Project Proposal Form. This can be can be obtained from the PCAG offices or from the this PCAG website.
If you would like any further advice/ information with regard to producing an application for the Interface Audit Group, please contact Tracy Johnson (PCAG Deputy Manager).
The Leicestershire Interface Audit Group (IAG) considers clinical interface audits should:
- Address points of contact between different health care sectors.
- Be audit, and not research. (i.e. have clear criteria to audit against)
- Examine care pathways, seamless provision, communications.
- Refer to guidelines and /or protocol implementation.
- Examine shared care arrangements.
- Be multi-disciplinary; multi sector.
- Be focused, rather than enormous and complex.
- Have a clear intent to close the loop.
- Reflect key local, regional and national priority areas.
3.Important Elements of Interface Audit2
Ensure representatives from all areas are in the audit team:
- Any changes in practice are likely to involve more than one side of the interface.
- Involvement in and commitment to the audit process, by all those being audited, is central to success.
- Interface audit requires cooperation and teamwork.
- Maintaining anonymity, of those whose practice is being audited, is crucial to the success of an interface audit project.
Clarity of purpose:
- Being able to define precisely the topic of the audit is very important.
- Potentially many areas involved in a project. Therefore there is a danger of the scope becoming too large and too broad.
Completion of the audit cycle:
- Involving introduction of change and re-auditing.
- Feeding back results from interface audit projects to all sectors will be essential to ensure ownership of action plans and subsequent implementation.
Other important considerations when planning an interface audit:
-Do all areas of care whose project is to be audited:
-Know about the audit project?
-Support the audit project?
-Agree with the audit project taking place?
- Is there agreement about what is best practice?
- Does the area of practice being audited have a direct effect on clinical outcome?
- Are there clear criteria and standards/outcomes/ guidelines being measured?
- Will definitive criteria and standards be set, or existing criteria and standards be appropriately revised following the audit?
- Is there a commitment to the audit results/ recommendations being acted upon by all agencies involved in the audit?
4.Advantages of Interface Audit
Potential benefits from interface audit include:
- A more effective and appropriate use of audit resources.
- A more complete picture of patient care and the effectiveness of this care.
- An improvement in understanding, communication and collaboration between health care professionals in primary and secondary care. Thus, bringing closer the possibility of seamless patient care.
References
- Baker,R. What is interface audit? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol 87pgs 228-231. April 1994.
- Eccles, M. Interface Audit; Multi-Disciplinary Audit Across Professional Divides. Audit Trends. Vol pgs 135 137. Dec. 1994.