Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gair, R.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberg, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gair, R.
Right arrow Articles by Weinberg, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1992 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

research-article

Criteria for audit of annual reports on the public health: do they exist?


Richard Gair, Registrar
Lina Li Chee Lan, Medical Officer
Martin Mckee, Senior Lecturer
Camilla Parikh, Registrar
Julius Weinberg, Registrar

Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Keppel Street London WC1E 7HT


Address correspondence to Dr J. R. Weinberg, Dept. of Public Health, East Berkshire Health Authority, King Edward VII Hospital, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 3DH

Production of an annual report is a statutory duty of the Director of Public Health; its production uses significant resources. Audit of reports may help in the effective use of these resources. For audit to be performed criteria need to be agreed upon which to set standards. The present study investigated whether Directors of Public Health agree on suitable criteria for the audit of annual health reports. Districts within North East Thames Regional Health Authority were paired; Directors of Public Health, who had produced the most recent report, interviewed each other using a semi-structured questionnaire. Reports were examined for the presence of the ‘key indicators’ from the common data set. The results show that there was little agreement on what were suitable criteria to evaluate reports. The criteria in the Toolbox produced by the Faculty of Public Health Medicine were thought to be unsuitable because of the diversity of Districts. Effective audit requires agreed criteria and standards but these were not identified. The Faculty criteria were not considered suitable. Directors of Public Health may develop criteria that they consider suitable for audit of their annual report in discussion, focusing upon their objectives in producing an annual report. This should be the first step in the audit process and an integral part of producing an annual report.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
A M Hartley, R K Griffiths, and K L Saunders
An evaluation of clinical governance in the public health departments of the West Midlands Region
J Epidemiol Community Health, August 1, 2002; 56(8): 563 - 568.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.