National Audit of Dementia Involving audit leads in the development of service reports

1. National Audit of Dementia Involving audit leads in the development of service reports Renata Souza, Deputy Programme Manager

2. National Audit of Dementia • Established in 2008 to examine the quality of care received by people with dementiain general hospitals (England & Wales). • Two cycles of audit have been carried out, in 2010 and 2012. • Two modules were carried out in both rounds: organisational checklist and case note audit. • At the end of each cycle service reports were produced and sent to audit leads of each participating hospital. These aimed to: Support hospitals to identify areas for improvement, and develop action plans based on these areas. Allow participating hospital to benchmark their performance against other hospitals and against their performance between rounds of audit.

3. The working group • We wanted to ensure service reports met hospitals’ expectations – important to understand how these are used locally • An email working group was set up with a select number of audit leads to provide ongoing feedback and input into the development of the service report template • Email invitation was sent to all audit contacts – 7 people volunteered to join: 2 geriatricians, 2 matrons, 1 practice development nurse and 2 clinical audit facilitators • Regular email discussions and consultation were carried out for the period of 3months

4. The working group • We first circulated a short questionnaire to the group to get their views on some of the main changes we were proposing to make • We then carried out regular email discussions about specific aspects of the report template – participants were able to exchange ideas and give suggestions Email discussion group more efficient than feedback forms – more dynamic, gave the project team the opportunity to receive ongoing feedback and understand services’ needs and expectations before reports were finalised

5. Suggestions from working group put into practice ‘Summary of key findings’ section tofacilitate the sharing of results Colour code themes so information can be easily found

6. Suggestions from working group put into practice Data from both tools presented together for easy comparison Add additional statistical information (median IQR), but highlight the main results Shorten the report by making introductory text and background information available online

7. Feedback • Feedback from audit leads • Reports are user-friendly, easy to share the results • The data was presented clearly and was easy to interpret • It was easy to identify key areas for action • Sharing the experience • We have shared our experience with other audit projects within our department who have encouraged services to send feedback on the local report templates • Audit projects within our department have also adopted our report template to produce their own service reports

8. Any questions?