Auditing chronic disease care : does it make a difference?

dc.contributor.authorEssel, Vivienen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorVan Vuuren, Unitaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDe Sa, Angelaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorGovender, Srinien_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMurie, Katieen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorSchlemmer, Arinaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorGunst, Coletteen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorNamane, Mosedien_ZA
dc.contributor.authorBoulle, Andrewen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorDe Vries, Elmaen_ZA
dc.identifier.citationEssel, V., et al. 2015. Auditing chronic disease care : does it make a difference?. African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 7(1):1-7, doi:10.4102/phcfm.v7i1.753en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn2071-2936 (online)
dc.identifier.issn2071-2928 (print)
dc.descriptionCITATION: Essel, V., et al. 2015. Auditing chronic disease care : does it make a difference?. African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 7(1):1-7, doi:10.4102/phcfm.v7i1.753.en_ZA
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at
dc.description.abstractBackground: An integrated audit tool was developed for five chronic diseases, namely diabetes, hypertension, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and epilepsy. Annual audits have been done in the Western Cape Metro district since 2009. The year 2012 was the first year that all six districts in South Africa’s Western Cape Province participated in the audit process. Aim: To determine whether clinical audits improve chronic disease care in health districts over time. Setting: Western Cape Province, South Africa. Methods: Internal audits were conducted of primary healthcare facility processes and equipment availability as well as a folder review of 10 folders per chronic condition per facility. Random systematic sampling was used to select the 10 folders for the folder review. Combined data for all facilities gave a provincial overview and allowed for comparison between districts. Analysis was done comparing districts that have been participating in the audit process from 2009 to 2010 (‘2012 old’) to districts that started auditing recently (‘2012 new’). Results: The number of facilities audited has steadily increased from 29 in 2009 to 129 in 2012. Improvements between different years have been modest, and the overall provincial average seemed worse in 2012 compared to 2011. However, there was an improvement in the ‘2012 old’ districts compared to the ‘2012 new’ districts for both the facility audit and the folder review, including for eight clinical indicators, with ‘2012 new’ districts being less likely to record clinical processes (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.21–0.31). Conclusion: These findings are an indication of the value of audits to improve care processes over the long term. It is hoped that this improvement will lead to improved patient outcomes.en_ZA
dc.format.extent7 pagesen_ZA
dc.publisherAOSIS Publishing
dc.subjectChronic diseases -- Careen_ZA
dc.subjectMedical audit -- Western Capeen_ZA
dc.titleAuditing chronic disease care : does it make a difference?en_ZA
dc.description.versionPublisher's versionen_ZA
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyrighten_ZA

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)