Accountancy Compliance Audit Tool

CRITIQUING MONTHLY MEDICATION COMPLIANCE AUDIT TOOL

This critique essay, will firstly, identify the chosen tool, examine what is good, bad, accurate and inaccurate and rational the chosen audit tool. Secondly, it aims to explore and demonstrate understanding of the relationship between clinical governance and audit and how, why this type of audit tool is implemented in my workplace. In addition to the second point, clinical governance and audit tool will be defined. Thirdly, the point will focus on the audit tool how could it be used to optimise clinical effectiveness and improve patient experience. At the same time identify the healthcare standard, compare the national standard of monthly medication compliance audit tool and the local
(Wright and Hill, 2003). Yet, Scally and Donaldson, 1998 states that clinical governance is the method used by NHS and other clinical practices for accountability and the continuation of the improvement of the services provided and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment that allows high quality of care to flourish. Whereas the NHS explains that clinical governance is the only way to use, so they have a continuous and flourishing high quality of care to service users and to provide high quality care. It is to make sure service users receive their care at the suitable time delivered by the suitable care giver. The accountability lies under every employee. (Uhb, 2015). The government implemented the clinical governance due to the multiplication of poor care in public, lacking the quality or quantity required, insufficient for purpose and the repetition of very bad standards of care in the NHS. It is required since it improves the standards of care for instance better documentation has been spread all over and to protect delivering improper care. (Wright and Hill, 2003). Whereas, clinical audit is well-defined as an important tool
As well as to make sure the data collected is interpreted correctly to be reliable, accurate, and valid (UBHT NHS, 2013). In addition, during the process of audit interpretation, audit is compared to research. Audit and research share similar features but differs at the same time. The similarity is that audit and research have quantitative and qualitative methods used. They all require answering question in relation to healthcare qualities, but, mainly audit is there to improve the quality of care while research involve finding new information to improve practice. (UHBT NHS, 2005). As mentioned earlier audit is unambiguous whereas research is ambiguous. The reliability of data is to ensure the audit tool produces stable evidence and consistent results. During academic week five, in the seminar of audit interpretation it was mentioned audit feasibility scoring grid and it prioritised to measure five stages. Firstly, is the tool addresses a relevant problem to the care provided. Secondly, is the chosen topic most important for both practice and team. Thirdly, Can the audit data be collected in less than a month. Fourth, any confidence shown that the data collected reliable and accurate. Lastly, could changes recommended as a result of the audit be